“Hopeless anti-graft system” – de la Serna

The Ombudsman’s dismissal of a graft case against five National Irrigation Administration (NIA) officials for alleged anomalies in the multi-million peso Talibon Small Reservoir Impounding Project (SRIP) has drawn a wave of public ire condemning the country’s anti-graft system.

Lawyer Victor dela Serna has called the Ombudsman a “political instrument” with a two-pronged purpose that is fully wielded by those in power.

“The Ombudsman has become a political instrument to insulate government officials allied with the Arroyo administration from being prosecuted while it (Ombudsman) has become an instrument for harassment on those perceived to be political enemies,” Dela Serna said.

The former governor held that filing cases at the Ombudsman is “an exercise in futility” as he expressed dismay over the “hopeless” state of the government’s prosecuting arm of abusive public officials.

Dela Serna cited the scuttled National Broadband Network (NBN) deal that unleashed the Ombudsman to take legal action against those who exposed the irregularities of the multi-billion contract such as Jun Lozada while those who were accused of irregularities such as Comelec chairman Benjamin Abalos was not even charged with a single case.

In a similar comment, Atty. Artemio Cabatos of the Boholanos Against Corruption, Oppression and Social Harassment (Bacos) declared that the ruling of the Ombudsman “shattered people’s faith” on our criminal justice system.

“Is the loss of more than a hundred million pesos in government funds not a substantial legal basis for the filing of graft cases against the five NIA officials?” Cabatos asked, referring to the ruling of the Ombudsman citing “lack of legal basis” for dropping the complaint filed by Bacos.

During an inspection of the Talibon irrigation project in 2004, it was less than half completed while a fund outlay for its completion in the amount of P165 million was already exhausted.

Based on its revised approved budget for contract, the Talibon Dam would cost P243 million.

“The said appropriation was exhausted, but the project was less than half accomplished. What does the Ombudsman mean by ‘lack of substantial basis?’” Cabatos questioned.

RADIO SURVEY

A radio survey over dyRD’s top-rated Inyong Alagad showed that the public disagreed with the ruling of the Ombudsman.

Seventeen radio listeners who called up Inyong Alagad all aired their dissenting opinions regarding the finding that there is “lack of legal basis” to pursue the case.

All of them said they believed there were anomalies attending the project.

No one among the callers said they agreed with the resolution of the Ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN HAS NO JURISDICTION

According to Cabatos, the Ombudsman is just an investigating body to help establish a case against reported corruption in government.

In 2004, the Talibon irrigation project’s manager and now provincial irrigation officer, Engr. Calixto Seroje together with 4 other NIA officials, were investigated by the Ombudsman Graft Investigator which found prima facie case against them.

“We expected the case to be elevated to the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction over the case,” Cabatos stressed.

The Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal action, according to Cabatos, was not only improper but has also “put under serious doubt the integrity in government service and the capacity of government to dispense justice…”

“The only ground for the dismissal was lack of substantial legal basis, a ruling that was penned by an Ombudsman graft investigator that contradicted that of another graft investigator’s finding of prima facie case,” he pointed out.

“If there was prima facie evidence in 2004, why was it lost in 2006?” Cabatos asked.

According to Cabatos, “the people’s right to information and to protection against grafters clearly appears to have been schemingly violated.”

Bacosh, the main complainant of the case, represented by Cabatos, has already filed a motion for reconsideration at the Ombudsman.
(By KIT BAGAIPO)