Ombudsman’s failing

We have read in newspapers and seen on TV a number of government officials who, when accused of a crime before the Office of the Ombudsman, or facing administrative cases, brush off the charges against them as “politically motivated,” “political harassment” or “political persecution.”

The sad fact is, at the time they were committing the illegal act, they knew that it was against the law, except that they were pretty sure they could bribe their way out of prosecution by the Office of the Ombudsman even if the evidence against them was airtight.

We had a very sad experience with the Office of the Ombudsman some eight years ago. We filed an administrative complaint against a municipal mayor for overpricing. The case involved computer sets bought at double the prevailing price in the locality. But the Commission on Audit officials who investigated our complaint failed to do the right audit. And we faced formidable enemies: the accused mayor, a congressman and a few officials in high places linked to the case. And despite our ardent appeal for reconsideration, the graft investigator of the Office of the Ombudsman simply turned a deaf ear to our complaint. The case was eventually dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

So whenever I hear of or see government officials claiming that the cases filed against them are “politically motivated,” “political harassment” or “political persecution” when in truth and in fact they benefited financially from their questionable transactions, I am outraged.

And not only by such comments. I know that graft investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman have been biased when they should have been fair, or allowed themselves to be lured by mammon.

—MARK E. PARAS JR.,

publisher/editor,

Sorsogon Today,

[email protected]