Business groups are calling for the establishment of a technology-enabled public registry of decisions and resolutions involving public officers and personnel as part of a broader modernization of the justice system to promote transparency.
The call was issued today, Wednesday, by three large business organizations – Makati Business Club (MBC), Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX), and Justice Reform Initiative (JRI), a movement advocating for reforms in the administration of justice to promote the rule of law, transparency, and efficiency
In a joint statement, the group expressed outrage over the alleged secret reversal of the former Ombudsman’s decision. The groups also commended current Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla for disclosing the alleged secret decision to reverse the 2016 order of then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales against then Congressman Joel Villanueva over his alleged misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
“Transparency is not optional. The Constitution mandates full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest (Article II, Section 28). It further guarantees the people’s right to information on matters of public concern, including access to decisions – as a safeguard for public accountability (Article III, Section 7),” the statement said.
These mandates also apply to the Office of the Ombudsman, which is vested with the authority to investigate any act or omission by public officials that appears illegal, unjust, or improper. The Ombudsman not only has the power but also the duty to “publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.”
This unpublicized reversal by former Ombudsman Martires of the 2016 order, if true, contravenes the constitutional mandate of transparency and the Ombudsman’s own Rules of Procedure, which echo this constitutional duty to publicize matters when warranted.
In this case, public disclosure was clearly warranted. Not doing so deprived the public of access to vital information, and the parties involved of their lawful remedies – such as motions for reconsideration or reinvestigation, or appeal to the Court of Appeals or Petitions for Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it deprived the rightful beneficiaries of the PDAF of resources that were allegedly misappropriated. Such secrecy undermines confidence in the justice system and sends a dangerous signal that decisions affecting public accountability may be quietly undone, and the people can be kept in the dark.
“We therefore respectfully urge the Ombudsman to uphold the rule of law and proceed with the investigation and prosecution of all public officials found culpable. Jurisprudence is clear that the Ombudsman possesses authority to revisit prior rulings where justice may have been compromised, to ensure that the guilty do not go unpunished and the innocent are protected.”
“The role of the Ombudsman is crucial and pivotal. Democracy and public accountability can only work if there are consequences to violating the law. The Ombudsman, by standing by its sworn duty, can stop the impunity of corruption, be a champion of justice, and deliver on the promise of a government for the people.”
