The Office of the Ombudsman and the Anti-Red Tape Authority (Arta) seem to be engaged in a turf war.In a recent congressional hearing, Ombudsman Samuel Martires called on Congress to repeal the Arta law for being unconstitutional because “it usurps or encroaches upon the powers of the Ombudsman.”
He said that under the Constitution, his office has the power and function to “… determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.”
Note that the Arta was created by Republic Act No. 11032 in 2007 to improve efficiency in the delivery of government services to the public by reducing bureaucratic red tape and preventing graft and corruption.
Martires’s call for the Arta’s abolition was opposed by over 30 business organizations in the country. They urged the two offices to work together to improve government service.
The fact that those organizations came to the Arta’s defense may be interpreted to mean they believe it is doing its assigned task despite the obstacles being thrown at it by government personnel who consider graft and corruption as integral elements of public office.
Bear in mind that a major disincentive to foreign investments in the Philippines is the difficulty of doing business with national and local government offices. It is a pain in the neck and elsewhere.
Through bureaucratic red tape, corrupt government officials have been able to compel people who transact business with them to pay “lubrication” fees to ensure the speedy release of permits, licenses and certificates.
What’s wrong or unacceptable about the Arta assisting the Ombudsman accomplish its mandate to eliminate red tape to improve government service?
The Ombudsman has its hands full investigating and prosecuting government officials suspected of involvement in illegal activities.
Last year, Martires asked Congress to increase his budget to enable him to employ more investigators and lawyers who can conduct fact-finding and preliminary investigation of pending cases.
In 2021, the Commission on Audit reported that 64 percent of his staff held high level positions. There were more generals than foot soldiers.
The Arta has neither usurped nor encroached on the Ombudsman’s powers in regard to getting rid of red tape, mismanagement and fraud in government.
There is nothing in the Arta’s charter that divests, directly or indirectly, the Ombudsman of its authority to investigate and take action on government operations that result in inefficiency and graft and corruption.
It is basic that a law cannot modify, revise or amend any provision of the Constitution. Congress can only flesh it out or provide the mechanism by which it can be properly implemented.
And that’s precisely the objective behind the Arta—to work in tandem with the Ombudsman in eliminating the factors that prevent government offices from rendering efficient service to the public.
Note that if the Constitution wants a constitutional office to exercise exclusive authority or jurisdiction over certain matters within its area of responsibility, it states so clearly.
Thus, the Commission on Elections has “… exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials …”
The Commission on Audit has “ … exclusive authority … to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required …”Considering the accomplishments of the Arta, which many business organizations have recognized, it should not be abolished and instead should be strengthened and provided with powers that would enable it to effectively enforce its orders on government offices that make doing business with them an ordeal or a test of patience. INQ
For comments, please send your email to rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph.