Existence of ICI redundant with Ombudsman — legal expert

The existence of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) is redundant with the Office of the Ombudsman, which has more power to investigate anomalous flood control projects, constitutional law expert Atty. Domingo Cayosa said Sunday.

In an interview with Super Radyo dzBB, Cayosa said it is better to support and watch over the Ombudsman in investigating the flood control projects.

“Kesa mag doble-doble, darami lang yong bureaucratic layers, suportahan na lang yung Ombudsman. Bantayan yan, maging transparent  kasi ang puder ng Ombudsman hindi lang nasa batas, nasa konstitusyon. Ang linaw linaw dun hindi pwede limitahan ng Kongreso,” Cayosa said.

(Instead of creating overlapping functions that will only add more bureaucratic layers, we should just support the Ombudsman. Let’s monitor it and ensure transparency, because the Ombudsman’s authority is not only provided by law but also in the Constitution. It’s very clear that Congress cannot limit that power.)

“Tama po (redundant ang ICI), at ang Ombudsman, nasa Konstitusyon, it can call any government instumentality, law enforcement, investigatory, COA. Lahat ho yan nandun. At walang limit yan. Konstitusyon lang ang nag lilimit,” he added.

(That’s right, the ICI is redundant. The Ombudsman is already in the Constitution, which can call on any government agency, law enforcement body, investigatory unit, or even the Commission on Audit. All of that is already there, and there are no limits to it. Only the Constitution can limit it.)

Cayosa, however, said he believed that the ICI has enough legal grounds despite having limited power, which are fact-finding and recommendatory powers.

He made the statement following the filing of a petition questioning the legality of Executive Order No. 94, which established the ICI.

Cayosa also said the Ombudsman is more dependable than the ICI since it has a seven-year term and can only be replaced through impeachment.

“Meron siya deputy, meron siya proactive powers to prevent corruption,” Cayosa said.

“We demand of him na gawin ang trabaho. Malakas ang ating pag-asa pa diyan kung mabantayana natin sila,” he added.

(He has deputy and proactive powers to prevent corruption. We demand of him to perform his duty. We have strong hope if we keep a close watch on them.)

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla earlier said he planned to file charges against high-ranking government officials and their cohorts in the anomalous flood control projects before the Sandiganbayan by November 25.

Meanwhile, Cayosa believed that designating special courts to investigate corruption-related cases linked to government infrastructure projects could cause delays.

“Sa dami dami ng mga katawalian sa infrastructure, hindi yan kakayanin ng isa, dalawa, o tatlong korte lang. So mas lalo yan mag bottleneck,” he said.

(With so many irregularities in infrastructure projects, one, two, or even three courts can’t handle them. That will just cause more bottlenecks.)

Cayosa believes it is better for the Sandiganbayan and all levels of the court to have a “self-imposed deadline” to ensure efficient investigation.

“Mas maganda na special rule na summary proceeding abrogated at luwagan ‘yung level ng ebidensya at huwag magdagdag ng requirement na wala naman sa batas,” he added.

(It would be better to have a special rule for summary proceedings, ease on the level of evidence, and avoid adding requirements that are not provided by law.)

The legal expert added that the Sandiganbayan should also impose an administrative dismissal to pressure those linked to the anomalous flood control project to point at their cohorts.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court said it will designate special courts dedicated to corruption-related cases arising from the government’s infrastructure projects. — RF, GMA Integrated News