What the ombudsman is not

Herbie Gomez

THE Office of the Ombudsman is probably one of the most misunderstood institutions of the government. For one, it is not a special anti-graft court. If it is, then there is no need for it to bring criminal cases of graft and corruption to the Sandiganbayan for prosecution. The Sandiganbayan is the special anti-graft court, not the Office of the Ombudsman although the latter exercises quasi-judicial functions in that it is vested with powers that resemble that of a regular court of law to remedy a situation or impose legal penalties on the administrative aspects of cases. But the only way it can send anyone to jail is by way of a successful prosecution. That makes it a prosecutor which is different from a judge in a courtroom as we know it.

The ombudsman has four roles:

• It serves as a watchdog against corrupt and abusive people in government.
• It mobilizes the citizenry to strengthen the national campaign for good governance.
• It is a constructive critic of the government, making recommendations after reviewing government policies, systems, procedures and practices.
• Administratively, it imposes sanctions on erring people in government, and then brings them to the Sandiganbayan for criminal prosecution as it sees fit.

The ombudsman’s functions include helping citizens get basic services from government, preventing and investigating graft and corruption, and prosecuting and imposing administrative sanctions on those it found to be liable.

The Office of the Ombudsman basically functions like the Commission on Human Rights and exercises quasi-judicial functions like the Civil Service Commission or the National Police Commission. (There are many other government bodies with quasi-judicial functions like the environment, health and agrarian reform departments, etc., but these are not courts in the strictest sense of the word.)

Simply put, the ombudsman is to corruption what the CHR is to human rights violations, but it has some awesome powers that the human rights commission doesn’t have. But basically, it is a monitor, investigator and prosecutor but not an anti-graft court which is really a misconception.

Now, are the ombudsman’s decisions and orders final and executory? Here’s what the ombudsman states on its website: “Where the respondent is absolved of the charge and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure, reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.”

So, it is very clear that all the ombudsman’s decisions are appealable, and not final and executory unless the administrative penalty imposed is only 1)  public censure, 2) reprimand, 3) suspension of not more than one month or 4) a fine equivalent to the wrongdoer’s one-month salary.

Next time, do not be surprised and ask this silly question: “Why is he/she still there when he/she was already convicted by the ombudsman?” Most likely, it’s because the alleged offender is fighting his/her case all the way to the Supreme Court. The question is ridiculous because that is like asking why the respondent has not been jailed yet when the Office of the City Prosecutor already resolved that it has a case. Why? It’s because the ombudsman’s decision is not a court verdict, stupid. Pastilan.