Ombudsman 101

The idea is simple. The people form themselves a government and pool their resources to run it. Since it is not possible for all of them to be governors, they elect their governors for a fixed term. Thus, the people become the governed, and the governors are entrusted with the vast resources of government and use them to promote the people’s welfare.

Alas, not all governors can be trusted. Among them are weak human beings prone to the temptations of high office. Others simply succumb to the pressures of a morally-depraved society; everybody is corrupt, and politicians are hustling for votes from voters who sell them.

Over and above these is what we call the Ombudsman. At least the idea is this: an independent and powerful office is created by the governed to protect them from the abuses of their governors, and from themselves if need be. The Ombudsman shall be like a high priest in government, fitted with a lofty calling to be over and above social sins.

Our nation is not too far away from that idea, in fact. Our Constitution created the independent Office of the Ombudsman. Its primary duty is to “investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.”

The same Constitution declares the Ombudsman and his or her Deputies as the “Protectors of the People.” Those words are really there, in Article XI, Section 12 of the Constitution. It is based on a concept that originated from Sweden in the early 19th century, founded on the premise that public office is a public trust.

With that short lecture on the concept and constitutional basis of the existence of the Ombudsman, may I now ask: Do you feel its presence in our society today?

Ombudsman Samuel Martires announced earlier this month that the public, including members of the media, may no longer obtain from his office a copy of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) of the president, vice president and other government officials without the approval of the concerned official.

Like former ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, I am giving Ombudsman Martires the benefit of the doubt as regards his new policy restricting public access to SALNs. I have yet no reason to doubt Martires’ intentions when he reasoned out that the SALN is being “weaponized” to destroy the reputation of government officials.

But I have reasons to question his logic. Since he is the Ombudsman, he should know that public office is a public trust. The meaning of that phrase is expressed by no less than Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution: “a public office is a public trust… public officers and employees, who are servants of the people, must at all times be accountable to the latter, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

What clearer statement about being in public office could one find than that? To say that SALNs are being used to destroy the reputation of government officials is an argument that is getting ahead of itself. The Ombudsman cares too much about what the governed think about the reputation of their governors.

We need to be reminded about the basics in the relationship between the governors and the governed vis-à-vis the role of the Ombudsman to protect not the governors, but the governed.