Ombudsman Raw Intel Data

Hole of Justice

by Peter G. Jimenea

The Ombudsman Raw Intel Data

In 2009, the PNP National HQ issued a resolution for the procurement of watercrafts for the Maritime Goup. A budget of P5M was approved for 20 units and a bidding was held but failed, hence, the procurement by administration.

On 2010, instead of 20 units at pegged price of 250,000 each, the PNP paid to the supplier Four Petals Trading a P4.5 million for the 16 units of watercrafts costing 312,000 each. The reduction of four units gave the MARICOM a savings of P.5M as reported.

When the rubber-boats were delivered and inspected on March 22, 2010, the Ombudsman found out the following defects; 1). No oil pressure and water temperature gauges, a speedometer and other parts essential to a rubber boat. A case was filed against all people involved in the deal.

On June 02, 2015 a consolidated decision was promulgated dismissing nineteen (19) top PNP officials from service due to involvement in the P5M rubber-boat transaction. One is S/Supt. Cornelio Salinas, Director of the Iloilo Provincial Police Office (IPPO).

S/Supt. Salinas is widely believed a dedicated police officer in service and a good leader by example for subordinates who are lucky to wear the police uniform they are so proud of. But the Ombudsman seemed to have overlooked the real details of the investigation report.

The P4.5M watercrafts are not rubber-boats as described in the news report. They are made of fiberglass, reinforced by lumber and marine plywood with outriggers (katig) made of bamboo. And the mentioned other lacking parts are not that essential to install.

Beside which, some of the police officers linked by the Ombudsman were not personally interviewed by graft-investigators as to veracity of the anomaly reported. They were only required to file counter-affidavits, nothing more.

The Ombudsman has failed to promote efficient service to the people as provided for in Sec. 13 of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. It failed to use its investigatory and prosecutor powers to inquire and obtain information to institute and implement measures.

Why run after the police officers forP4.5M anomaly and skipped the P137M Iloilo Housing Scam of the administration stooges in the city? Are cases against administration crooks not good for theOmbudsman Court?

While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, the Supreme Court (SC) is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman action when there is an abuse of discretion. (Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769).

Just look at the length of time spent by the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate this P4.5M alleged rubber-boat anomaly. The five years has caused prolonged anxiety to the litigant-police officers and have tied their assets and other properties to litigation.

But the Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic Constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the extremely abusive investigative and prosecutor powers of the government. Summum jus, summum injuria – extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice. (Berico vs CA, 225 SCRA 562).

In G.R. 191411, Coscolluela vs. Ombudsman, the SANDIGANBAYAN SECOND DIVISION reprimanded the Ombudsman that it is their responsibility to expedite the case within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

As pronounced in the case of Barker v. Wingo: A defendant has no  duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. Due to delay it ordered to dismiss the case against Coscolluela et al.

Omb Conchita Carpio Morales should not rely on raw intelligence data of her people. It is only for her lazy investigators and the real crooks that what she did is good. The law says; “it is safer to err in acquitting than in punishing.” Now can she feel the agony of this injustice to the rightful police officer?