Ombudsman urges inclusion of special provisions on use of savings, income in its 2023 budget

The Office of the Ombudsman on Tuesday requested the Senate committee on finance to include special provisions in the General Appropriations Act allowing the anti-graft body to use its savings and income.

During the budget hearing, Assistant Ombudsman for Finance Weo Layson said special provisions on the organizational structure as well as the provision on the use of savings and the use of income have been removed in previous years.

“It is earnestly hoped that the foregoing special provisions again be included in the GAA that will be passed by both houses of Congress,” Layson said.

Ombudsman Samuel Martires said they are in the process of reorganizing the structure of the anti-graft body.

For his part, Finance committee chairman Sonny Angara said he does not think the inclusion of the special provisions will be a problem for his colleagues.

According to Martires, there are around 1,000 unfilled positions in the office.

“We’re in the process of reorganization, actually, there will be some departments or divisions that will be collapsed and another division will be created. This is to speed up the investigation of cases,” he said.

Administrative hearings

Martires said he is fighting “a culture” at the Ombudsman that has been in practice for the past 30 years.

Citing Administrative Order 7, Martires said then-Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez ordered that the anti-graft body must hold hearings on administrative cases.

“Hindi po ito ginawa. Hindi po ito ginagawa ng opisina ng Ombudsman na siyang gusto ko ngayon gawin. And yet may mga opisina akong iko-collapse to be able to address this issue,” Martires said.

(This was not done. This is not being done by the Office of the Ombudsman and I want to do it. And yet there are offices that I will collapse to be able to address this issue.)

He said Ombudsman personnel cited a previous Supreme Court decision stating that there is no need for a hearing in an administrative case.

“So ‘yan ang sinusunod ng Ombudsman. Pero mali po ‘yun. Because this decision of the Supreme Court cannot interfere or amend or modify a procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman,” Martires said.

(So this is being followed by the Ombudsman. But that is wrong. Because this decision of the Supreme Court cannot interfere or amend or modify the procedures of the Office of the Ombudsman.)

Meanwhile, Martires said the Office of the Ombudsman also has corrupt employees.
 
“I must admit to you... this is not to destroy the Office of the Ombudsman, but we ourselves are fighting corruption within the Office. Hindi ko ipagkakaila ‘yun (I will not deny that),” Martires said.

“Hindi namin pwedeng sabihin na ‘yung ahensya ng gobyerno ‘yung corrupt dahil kami mismo may problema sa korapsyon, may mga empleyado rin po kaming corrupt,” he added.

(We can’t conclude that a government agency is corrupt because we also have a problem with corruption. We also have corrupt employees.)

However, he said he was unable to find concrete evidence against these employees.

“That’s why i’m saying, kahit P100 bilyon ang ibigay niyo sa amin hindi namin kakayanin na labanan ang korapsyon,” Martires said.

(That’s why I’m saying, even if you give us P100 billion, we cannot fight corruption alone.)

The Finance committee approved the P4.781 billion proposed budget of the Ombudsman and recommended it to the plenary for deliberations, without prejudice to possible increase.—AOL/VBL, GMA News