Access to information under P-Noy
by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
DRIFT and confusion. Some pockets of transparency but most everywhere, a predilection for opaqueness and more barriers to access in place. This is the access to information regime that lingers in the Philippines nearly a year after Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III came to power on a “Social Contract with the Filipino People,” which he said would be defined by transparency, accountability, and good governance.
But a seven-month PCIJ audit of how 27 national agencies deal with access to information requests shows spotty proof of Aquino’s recipe for good governance in the processes and practices of these agencies. While a few stand out as exemplars of transparency, the majority remain stuck in the old ways of opaque government, with some even sliding back into darker corners.
This afternoon, news spread quickly that controversial Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez has resigned from her post. The surprise move comes days before the May 9 start of her Senate impeachment trial. Before 212 members of the House of Representativesvoted to impeach her on March 22, 2011, the proceedings to impeach Gutierrez in the legislature had been contentious, and observers expected the Senate trial to be a protracted process. Instead, public attention now moves to the circumstances of her resignation and questions about her replacement.
We have compiled our reports on the Office of the Ombudsman to look back at the tenure of Merceditas Gutierrez.
Sidebar
THE PUBLIC expectations are clear and well-founded. Malacañang under President Benigno Simeon Aquino III will uphold transparency in the conduct of its affairs. And perhaps, too, in the disclosure of documents imbued with public interest, not least of them the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of public officials.
Merci’s SALNs a big secret?
by Malou Mangahas and Karol Anne M. Ilagan
THEY are supposed to be the exemplars when it comes to compliance with the law requiring all civil servants to declare and disclose the full details of their assets, liabilities and net worth.
After all, the Office of the Ombudsman is vastly empowered by the Constitution to serve as the premier integrity and anti-graft agency of the land.
But only token compliance to absolute indifference to the law on the filing and disclosure of their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) seems to be the attitude and conduct common to Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez and her 11 deputy and assistant Ombudsmen.
‘Blackmail’ raps spook impeach plaint
by Karol Anne M. Ilagan and Malou Mangahas
TOMORROW, March 16, the 283-member House of Representatives plans to vote in plenary on the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez. At least 95 votes are needed for the complaint to move to the Senate, which alone under the law may sit as the impeachment tribunal to try Gutierrez for several counts of alleged betrayal of the public trust.
Yet other than the vote, the effort to impeach Gutierrez – the third attempt in as many years by the House and the only one to move past its Committee on Justice – has unfolded with two discussion tracks as backdrop. The first is an exchange of allegations of blackmail between Gutierrez’s camp and the lawmakers. The second is a vigorous campaign being mounted by both sides to court public opinion against each other.
Sidebar
by Karol Anne M. Ilagan
WITH power, function and duty, among others, 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,” the Office of the Ombudsman is fairly expected to be the exemplar in all its transactions involving public funds.
But two Commission on Audit (COA) reports on the Ombudsman in 2008 and 2009 raise doubts about whether the Office is setting a good example, listing rather critical observations on how the Ombudsman spends taxpayers’ money.
The apocalypse of good governance?
by Malou Mangahas and Karol Anne M. Ilagan
FOUR anti-graft czars and 22 years since its birth on Nov. 17, 1989, the Office of the Ombudsman of the Philippines has failed to strike fear in the hearts of crooks, or summon full respect from the people it is supposed to protect against crooks.
All four chiefs of the Office – the late Conrado M. Vasquez, who served from May 1988 to September 1995; Aniano A. Desierto, October 1995 to September 2002; Simeon V. Marcelo, October 2002 to November 2005; and the incumbent Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, December 2005 to November 2012 – had launched their stints as the nation’s top graft-busters with firm, elaborate, hopeful reforms to fight corruption.
When the criticisms trickled in – invariably over low conviction rates, perceived partiality toward the presidents who appointed them, and sheer failure to cope with tremendous case loads and hail crooks to jail – all four trudged on. What they ended serving up, though, were not more and better results, but more excuses (Desierto and Gutierrez doing so more than the other two).
Access to information rigmarole
by Karol Anne M. Ilagan and Malou Mangahas
ANIANO DESIERTO, the country’s second Ombudsman, used to be a broadcast newsman, but current chief graftbuster Merceditas N. Gutierrez has turned out to be more of a media creature than he ever was. She has been, in fact, a “tri-media personality,” running a personal column in a business daily, even as she co-hosted a radio show and a TV program on state-run media.
It may then not be far-fetched to assume that she and the agency that she heads would be more forthcoming than other government officials and institutions on information requested by the public or at the very least the media. Besides, as “protector of the people,” the Ombudsman’s Office is supposed to lead government in promoting transparency, efficiency, and quality of service to all citizens.
Yet while all procedures on accessing the Ombudsman’s key frontline services are spelled out on paper, actual experiences by some complainants, lawyers, and journalists reveal a side of the Office that is not very accessible and responsive to citizens’ needs.
Ombudsman’s paltry harvest
by Karol Anne M. Ilagan and Malou Mangahas
WHO has been jailed for corruption in this country?
In its search for answers, the Philippine Threshold Program launched a study on “Time Served for Corruption” covering 118 cases from 2001 to 2008 of public officials who had been prosecuted by the Ombudsman, convicted by the Sandiganbayan, and sent to jail after the Supreme Court upheld their convictions.
Over three-fourths or 93 of the cases were in different stages of execution proceedings. The small balance of 25 individuals had been served court orders committing them to prison, but nearly half or 11 had been pardoned by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
In short, less than one in every 10 persons convicted of corruption since 2001 has actually been jailed.
Sidebar
by Malou Mangahas
WHEN IT comes to hailing to jail alleged crooks in the military and police, the Ombudsman practically accords star-rank officers a mere slap on the wrist.
Only 19 generals of the Armed Forces have actually been prosecuted for alleged corruption in the 22-year history of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Of the 19, one and only one, Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, was convicted, after pleading guilty to a lesser offense of bribery, and after securing a plea-bargain agreement to evade prosecution for plunder.
Apart from the star-rank officers, however, a big majority or eight in every 10 respondents from the Armed Forces in the cases filed by the Ombudsman since 1988 have been men of lower rank, notably sergeants and lieutenants, and a spattering of colonels.
