Friday, February 01, 2008 Seares: Why justice gets stuck at ombud By Pachico A. Seares News Sense
JUSTICE grinds more slowly at the office of the ombudsman. Flaws are common in the justice system, yet one may be peculiar to the anti-graft agency.
There's a layer in ombud due process that may be partly to blame: the fact-finding inquiry before the preliminary investigation.
Unlike in prosecutor's offices, the ombud's formal probe doesn't start until the "prelim to the prelim" decides there's basis to proceed.
One can laud the intent. Weak, spiteful, even frivolous complaints are weeded out. A case isn't upgraded to formal inquiry until probable cause is found.
Troubling though is that the pre-screening often takes as much time as the formal prelim. How much study did they need to see that the lamps scandal's stink reached the heavens and made angels puke?
OK, the preliminaries are all hurdled: fact finding and preliminary investigation. Do you think they promptly file the case or dismiss it? Not yet.
One more layer
There's another layer, much thicker and tougher to cut through: approval by Manila ombud of each finding by the local ombud.
A review helps but not when it takes Manila ombud ages to do it. How many documents from the regions now gather dust at the head office?
It wasn't like this before. Previous Manila ombuds decentralized functions.
The current Manila ombud may mean well. But present procedures have bred doubts among a public that finds the delays outrageous.
Does the Manila office think there's only one ombudsman and this god doesn't want to share power with lesser gods in the regions? Or maybe, just maybe, the head office just wants to centralize opportunities for corruption.
