Ombudsman wages “invisible war” against some of her own prosecutors; is losing cases 8 out of 10

    

 

Photo by the Office of Ombudsman at  

 www. ombudsman. gov. ph

         This is based on a reading of the documents available. I don’t go to the Office of the Ombudsman everyday, i don’t really know what’s going on there, what the atmosphere is among the lawyers and between the prosecutors and  their boss, the Ombudsman,  how she relates to them and how the lawyers regard her, (i will change what i wrote here if she gives an interview describing how untenable the situation in her office has become that led her to fire off these orders on her prosecutors.) 

         But just based on the documents,  the series of internal office memos volleyed by the Ombudsman to her prosecutors gives the impression of an “invisible war” between, on one hand,  her and a chosen group of prosecutors, and on the other hand the prosecutors under the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutor himself, SP (former judge) Dennis Villaignacio. (The Ombudsman is having him investigated by an internal affairs board for alleged estafa, but i’m saving that for “part two” of this post.)

     (In the interest of full disclosure: this blog is stating that the  blog admin was in the legal team of the Special Prosecutor and some of his prosecutors in the plunder case. I am trying to be fair by saying that this article is based only on the documents available and i do not have first-hand knowledge of the professional relationships or the situation inside her office).

      It is bad enough that the Ombudsman is losing cases at the rate of 8 out of 10.

      The online newspaper, www.abs-cbnnews.com uploaded copies of the internal memos as pdf files (abs-cbnnews.com  wins the award for recognizing the importance of primary sources and uploading them as  pdf files  such as decisions in cases of public interest, vital  resolutions, orders, etc. Good work.), including a report from the Office of the Special Prosecutor summarizing the “batting average” of the prosecution.

      According to the report prepared by the supervising administrative officer of the Office of the Special Prosecutor  entitled “Sandiganbayan  Decided Cases for Year 2008, covering 12 months, as of July 7, 2008:

      Out of a total of 97 cases decided by the Sandiganbayan,  the prosecution lost 83 cases (acquittals) and won only 14 cases (convictions). 

      83 losses out of 97 means roughly,  out of 9.7 cases (or 10 cases),  the Ombudsman is losing 8.3 cases ( or 8 cases).  When you ask her what her batting average is and she answers 8 out of 10, you have to clarify: Wins? No, losses. In other words, the Ombudsman’s  batting average is 1.4 wins out of 9.7 or roughly 1 out of 9; losing the 8 others.  

     Normally, in a private law office, if you’re losing 8 cases out of 9 or 8 out of 9.7; you will be….fired! Or transferred to the Slovenia branch of the law office. Here of course in the Philippines, nobody holds the Ombudsman accountable, Congress is not doing anything; because by protecting her, they protect themselves. Glasshouses. 

       Now, the figures do not even include Informations (cases or formal charges) dismissed before or after arraignment (without prejudice and with prejudice) and cases dismissed on demurrer;  in other words, the record may be far worse.

       One of the series of memos fired off by the Ombudsman is a gag order (i will write about the other memos in “part two” of this post) on her prosecutors in a memo  of June 17, 2008 entitled “Media Interviews and Press Releases”, to all her employees, to quote:

       Quote “For purposes of the orderly administration of the functions of the Office of the Ombudsman, and towards enhancing the effectiveness of the OMB in the performance of its functions, it is hereby ordered that henceforth all media interviews and press releases of the OMB, including offices within it, shall be handled by Assistant Ombudsman Jose Tereso de Jesus and Assistant Ombudsman Mark E. Jalandoni.

      Quote “If there shall be a need for sectoral offices to conduct media interviews or issue press releases, to avoid making statement/s that  may be haphazard, or capable of different interpretations, or of being misquoted, such conduct of interviews or issuance of press releases shall be done only upon prior clearance or approval of Assistant Ombudsman Jose Tereso de Jesus depending on the subject matter of the interview/s or press release/s, and in which event, said authorized person shall be thoroughly  briefed on the details of the intended subject of interview or press release.

     Quote “For immediate compliance.

                        “(SGD) MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ

                                        “Ombudsman” closed-quote.

      In other words, if any of the prosecutors is asked by a reporter about the status of his/her case, cases that are of public interest because all graft cases against public officials are matters of public interest, he/ she is now allowed to as much as make a peep without getting the permission of the assistant of the Ombudsman.

      Usually, in a law office or a legal office, the handling lawyer or the legal team handling the case,  or any member of it, is authorized to give public statements about the case on aspects of public interest; since it is the handling lawyer who  knows all the facts of the case, studied all the legal issues involved, interviewed the witnesses, scrutinized the documentary evidence, attended the case conferences, conducted or assisted in the conduct of the direct or cross, etc. So, it is the handling lawyer (or member of the legal team handling the case) who is in the best position to know what to disclose or not disclose. You don’t usually farm out or contract out the task of giving public statements to a lawyer outside of the handling lawyers. If the supervising lawyer (or the Ombudsman) does not trust her handling lawyers enough to decide what public statements to give, she should remove them from the case; because this is what the order is all about: It is a manifestation, or an expression,  of distrust of your own handling lawyers.

       More important, all the cases being prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman are matters of public concern and utmost transparency is required. What’s with the prohibition on prosecutors giving media interviews? What’s going on in the Office of the Ombudsman?

       The gag order is in writing; if any of the prosecutors gives a media interview without clearance, or if with clearance, strays off the topic, he/she is in danger of being charged with insubordination; for not obeying the memo. What is going on in the Office of the Ombudsman?

 

      (to be continued)