Scope of Ombudsman’s powers
Finally, it’s over.
Chief Justice Renato Corona has been dismissed from the Supreme Court.
After five long months, his impeachment trial is now history. Regardless of our thoughts about his guilt or innocence, the senator-judges have spoken and their verdict should be respected by everybody.
So much time, resources and efforts have been spent on the country’s first impeachment trial that went to its full measure. Except for some questionable sanctions imposed on alleged contemptuous acts, no untoward incident marred the proceedings.
Former President Joseph Estrada, whose impeachment trial in 2000 was aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors, has reason to be envious about the way the Senate leadership handled Corona’s trial.
Corona’s right to due process was scrupulously observed. While other witnesses of lesser stature were treated roughly (and sometimes insulted to their faces), the senators were deferential to him. The rules on evidence were bent to allow him to tell his side in a storytelling manner.
Unfortunately, the senators’ liberality was reciprocated with an imperious closing statement and unceremonious walkout that was belatedly, and for damage control purposes, described as the after-effects of a hypoglycemic attack.
Had Estrada’s impeachment trial been accorded a similar treatment, things could have turned out differently. C’est la vie, as the French would say.
Investigation
Legal experts will have differences in opinion on whether or not Corona’s lawyers made the right move in calling Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales to the witness stand as their hostile witness.
Her testimony drew attention to the Ombudsman’s power to, among others, require government offices to provide information about activities of government officials and employees being investigated by her office.
Using the data supplied by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, she was able to trace the inflow and outflow of Corona’s dollar deposits in several domestic banks.
The ease by which her office was able to secure this information from AMLC sent a chill down the spine of some senators. They expressed apprehension about the possible abuse of that authority.
If Morales can, on the basis of a citizen’s complaint and without the benefit of a court order, extract such sensitive information from AMLC, they may in the future find themselves in the same boat as Corona.
Although Morales assured the senators that she does not intend to stain her 40 years of unblemished record of public service with politically motivated investigations, the look in the faces of the senators conveyed a sense of skepticism about her remarks.
Conspiracy
Erring government officials and employees are not the only people who may find themselves at the receiving end of the Ombudsman’s investigatory authority.
Under the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act 6770), private individuals may be investigated by the Ombudsman if there are reasons to believe they conspired with or acted in concert with government officials in the commission of irregularities or violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Thus, for example, if private businessmen and members of the bids and awards committee of a government office acted together to rig a public bidding for the procurement of products or services, all of them can be investigated by the Ombudsman despite the fact that the latter’s principal mandate is to go after erring government personnel.
This authority rests on the principle that, in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Private persons who made possible, facilitated or contributed to the commission of unlawful acts by government employees are equally liable for the penal sanctions imposed by law for their co-conspirators in the government service.
Proceeding from the same principle of liability in conspiratorial acts, the private persons and government employees involved can, if the evidence warrants, be jointly prosecuted before the Sandiganbayan or regular courts, depending on the salary grade of the latter.
The rule of the thumb in court assignment is, cases filed against government officials who hold supervisory or managerial positions are heard by the Sandiganbayan, while the rest are brought before the regular courts.
Consequences
Rightly or wrongly, the Ombudsman’s authority to run after private persons in cahoots with corrupt government employees puts, in some ways, a damper on the enthusiasm of private businessmen to participate in government-related projects.
For businessmen who value their honor and integrity, unverified reports (or rumors) of possible or suspected involvement in questionable government transactions can ruin their reputation in the business community.
What more if word leaks out that they are under investigation by the Ombudsman or that information about them on file with other government agencies is being looked into for possible complicity in criminal activities.
At the flick of a finger, facts and figures stored in the database of AMLC, Bureau of Internal Revenue and other regulatory agencies about a private person’s financial transactions can be easily downloaded and reviewed.
Blind items in newspapers or radio and TV programs have nasty ways of creating lives of their own or getting out of hand to the detriment of the interests and reputation of the affected businessman.
But if the businessman’s principal concern is money regardless of how he gets it, entanglement with the Ombudsman is nothing to be afraid of. It’s an indispensable ingredient of doing business with corrupt government officials in exchange for easy, but dirty, money.
(For feedback, write to <[email protected]>.)
