Last week’s column on Ombudsman Samuel Martires and the cupidity and/or stupidity of his actions resonated with quite a number of Readers. But I will concentrate only on the responses of two. The first comes from lawyer Plaridel Oscar J. Bohol, a former graft investigation and prosecution officer of the Office of the Ombudsman until 2004, when he optionally retired, and now is in private practice.
“I fully agree with your observations about the present Ombudsman especially on his complaint that allegedly nobody wants to testify against corrupt government officials. It is incorrect for Ombudsman Martires to say that nobody wants to testify.”
He points to the case of the late Dr. Roland Cortez, a good friend, the former medical director of the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH). According to him, Dr. Cortez filed a complaint for plunder against officers of the NCMH, and his complaint was duly validated by the NBI after appropriate investigation by its Anti-Graft Division. The NBI then forwarded the complaint to the Ombudsman on July 19, 2019.
Apparently, the Ombudsman took no action on the case, despite news reports of an NGO asking him to act on the complaint.
A year later, on July 27, 2020, continues Bohol, Dr. Cortez and his driver Ernesto de la Cruz were ambushed and shot dead by riding-tandem gunmen.
“On Aug. 24, 2020,” he further recounts, “the QCPD filed 2 counts of murder against 7 suspects including Clarita Avila, an officer of the NCMH, and one of those accused in the plunder case filed by Dr. Cortez. The QCPD said the killings were related to the efforts of Dr. Cortez to clean up the NCMH of corrupt officials. The QCPD pointed to Avila as the mastermind of the killings.
“Thus, contrary to Ombudsman Martires’ lamentations, there are Filipinos, upright government officials, who are willing to testify against corrupt officials. It is the Office that is dropping the ball, so to speak, in the fight against corruption.
“In the case of Dr. Cortez, the Ombudsman could have placed the respondents in the plunder complaint under preventive suspension as the charges are grave and the evidence strong, having been vetted by the NBI. But unfortunately, no, until the killing of Dr. Cortez and Ernesto de la Cruz. The Ombudsman sat on the case for more than one year. Had the Ombudsman acted, maybe Dr. Cortez and his driver may still be alive today.”
The last statement above is speculative, but the one before that is hard fact. And if the Inquirer editorial is correct, which stated that the number of cases the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan had dropped by 73 percent from 2018 to 2019 (739 to 198), with only eight cases filed in January 2020, the nonaction in the Cortez case helps to illustrate why the drastic drop. It should be pointed out that the drop occurred before COVID-19. It should also be pointed out that the Office of the Ombudman’s budget reached P4.6 billion last year, higher than it has ever been, as the bicameral committee added P1.8 billion to the P2.8 billion requested by the President.
The second shared information by a Reader is just as disturbing, as he asks the question: Has the Office of the Ombudsman remained independent under Martires? Under Conchita Carpio Morales, nobody even thought of asking that question, because it was so clear that Morales never gave an inch, and no one dared ask for one. But as I said in last week’s column, Martires allowed Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Carandang to be removed, for seemingly no other reason than that Carandang displeased President Duterte. Apparently the special prosecutor (tanodbayan) also resigned (before his time) to give way to Mr. Duterte’s man.
I am also informed that ANY request for a SALN now has to be submitted to the Ombudsman. And that during COVID-19, the Ombudsman has not reported for work, and employees who need to report or do work in the office must ask clearance from his office. Only a designated skeleton team is allowed in.
And, of course, he still has not explained the P15 million increase in his net worth in the last half of 2018.
I understand that Martires leaned toward the priesthood in his youth. Maybe he should undergo an examination of conscience now: Is he fit to be Ombudsman?
——————
solita_monsod@yahoo.com