A whiff of fresh air at the Office of the Ombudsman

JUSTICE Samuel Martires, newly appointed Ombudsman, is shaking things up at the Office of the Ombudsman, and one surely welcome development is letting in some fresh air.

He has ordered a review of cases

It is regrettably the punitive function of the Ombudsman that has come to characterize it — but the trouble with punishment is that it is always reactive. It comes after the fact. And it always deals with a particular offender. Seldom does it ever address a systemic malady, a syndrome, the deterrence argument notwithstanding. And because of this obsession with crime and punishment, offense and just deserts there is a very important mandate that the Constitution

- man that has been eclipsed.

Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, assigns the Ombudsman this task:

7) Determine the causes of

- ment, fraud, and corruption in the government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards

While the civil service has a sustained campaign against the nefariousness of red tape, this duty of the Ombudsman has been all but overlooked. Ironically, it should be one of the most effective means of dealing with

and corruption. The search

for

that is why Aristotle elevated it to the rank of a science: knowing a thing through its causes. But that it is necessary will not be doubted. Symptoms can be dealt with and dangerously repressed even, but until the cause has been found, the malady may prove to be debilitating, if not fatal.

The Ombudsman is called upon by the fundamental law of the land to be engaged in

— evidence- based ( and this goes beyond the evidence that the Rules of Court deal with to the kind of evidence that goes into empirical research). The Ombudsman therefore does not need lawyers only. It needs social scientists, organization experts and public administration specialists. And then it must

agencies of government in that pedagogical and dialogical process by which shortcomings are pointed out and processes are critically reviewed.

It is of course the easier thing to

then vex respondents, no matter that the complaints may be patently unmeritorious, riddle them with anxiety and fill their days with the preparation of counter-

is the more challenging task to be pro-active, to be involved in that science that seeks out causes unnecessary delay and corruption.

It is a common mistake, exacerbated by past practice and uncalled for hospitality to harassment complaints to deal with all “errors” as “misconduct,” if not “crimes.” A mistaken entry in a SALN is not necessarily a crime, not even an administrative offense. In fact, it can and should be corrected, and the law allows for its correction. This is of course a different matter from the non-submission of a SALN that the law requires. Mistakes in the compliance with the many frankly crazy provisions of the procurement law do not necessarily bespeak of malice or criminal intent. If any, they suggest that many provisions of that law are unreasonable, and that it takes some time to master

one’s way through them — or

Justice Sam is a wise man. And a man of prayer is never refused light from on high, as he is shielded from the distracting noise from below. I have utterly no doubt that during his watch and under his stewardship, the Ombudsman will be less the “castigadordelpais” and more its “gabay.”

rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph rannie_aquino@outlook.com