WHO WILL SAVE THE PEOPLE IF NOT THE OMBUDSMAN?
[Privilege statement of Sen. Nene Pimentel on the floor of the Senate on July 29, 2009]

Historically, the office of the Ombudsman was meant to insure the protection of the rights of the people against abusive officials.

Charles XII, King of Sweden, is credited with having created the Ombudsman in 1713. The Ombudsman, then, is a far cry from its roots when it was first organized.

Today, more than 100 countries have Ombudsmen of various types and powers.

In our country, I supported its creation because I believed that the then existing institutions of government did not adequately cover the complaints of hapless citizens abused by people in power.

That is why I have not raised a whimper of protest against those who had been appointed Ombudsmen by the presidents in the past and up to the present time.

Leeway

I believe that the incumbent should be given full leeway to put his or her choice to occupy the office of the Ombudsman.

Today, however, I have to speak out because it has become rather disturbing to say the least that instead of protecting the people against those who oppress them, the office of the Ombudsman appears wittingly or unwittingly to have been used to harass government officials who are not in good terms with the President.

Davao

Specifically, I refer to the recent suspension of three officials of Davao City: City Administrator Wendel Avisado, City Engineer Jose D. Gestuveo Jr., and Engineer Yusop Jimlani.

From afar, I see that the suspension smacks of political harassment because Mr. Avisado is identified with the City Mayor, Rodrigo Duterte. Mayor Duterte was a one-time ally of the President but has since fallen out of grace with her. While the case is directed against subordinates of the mayor, I understand that the ultimate target is the mayor, himself.

Casus belli

What seems to be the casus belli that resulted in Mr. Avidado's and his companions' suspension?

One can hardly believe it but it involves the removal of a concrete cement cover placed on top of a main drainage canal in Davao City.

The cement cover was a part of the project initiated by no less the Speaker of the House of Representatives Prospero Nograles.

The project had good intentions. It probably made walking in the Nograles Park more pleasurable. And by naming the concrete cover after Erico Nograles, the Speaker gave due honor to his father.

Flooding

The problem was that the project obstructed the free flow of water from the major thoroughfares of Davao City into the sea. Which caused flooding every time a heavy downpour occurred.

The concrete floor on top of the drainage canal according to the findings of the City Engineer's Office prevented the proper drainage of excess water from the streets of Davao city.

To top it all, it appears that no permit was issued for the construction of the questioned cement cover of the drainage of questioned canal. And its naming after the father of the Speaker is said to be in violation of an existing city ordinance.

To make this story brief, let me just say that the offending cement cover was demolished by the office of the City Engineer on October 16, 2008 with due notice to the office of the District Engineer of the DPWH.

In sum, some 20 truckloads of silt, waste and garbage were removed from the blocked canal and have reportedly eased the flooding of water from the concerned streets of Davao City.

Sued

Instead of appreciating the act of the City Engineer, the Speaker took offense. He sued Mr. Avisado and company before the office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao but later asked for the latter's inhibition so that the case could be transferred to the Manila-based Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman approved the inhibition motion of the Speaker and ordered his complaint transferred to the Manila Office.

On July 16, 2009, the Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro ordered the suspension of the above-named officials of Davao City.

So far, it looks like the Ombudsman did its job fairly well. Problem

But, then, Mr. Avisado and his co-respondents were not formally informed of the suspension order. They said that they did not even know that a complaint had been filed against them before the Ombudsman in Manila. They only read about it in the website of the Inquirer about a month after the order of suspension was signed by Mr. Casimiro.

Something wrong here.

Due process seems to have been thrown out of the window of the office of the Ombudsman.

From July 21, 2009 Mr. Avisado and his co-respondents have asked the Ombudsman for a certified true copy of the complaint against them and the order of preventive suspension.

All they got from Deputy Ombudsman Casimiro was a haughty reply that he "will consider the request and advice (their) counsel accordingly."

Rectify the problem

It is for this reason I ask the proper Senate Committee to conduct an investigation into the actuations of the Ombudsman in this matter so that if a law is needed to rectify the problem, this Chamber may be able to enact one.

Moreover, it seems that the Ombudsman does not apply the law against erring local officials on an even keel. If the local official is close to the President or is pretending to be close to the President, no matter what his or her infraction against the law might be, he or she won't get the attention of the Ombudsman.

Absentee vice mayor

Take the case of Cagayan de Oro Vice Mayor, Vicente Emano.

Mr. Emano has been elected vice mayor of the Cagayan de Oro.

His main duty as defined in the Local Government Code is to preside at the sessions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

The records will show that he has presided over the sessions only twice and that he had not discharged that duty for more than 103 sessions since the start of his term in 2007 up to yesterday.

Complaints have been filed against him but no action has been taken up to now by the authorities.

So we ask the Ombudsman, the guardian of the rights of the people, what's the score here?

If the Ombudsman cannot be relied upon to protect the people from abusive officials, where will the people go?

Perhaps, an investigation into the matter by the proper Committee of the Senate can provide suitable answers to the question.