A highly charged session in the nation’s legislative chamber recently brought the Office of the Ombudsman under intense scrutiny, as a fierce political confrontation exposed deep concerns regarding the integrity and processes of the country’s chief anti-corruption body.

The heated exchange took place during the budget deliberations, where Senator Rodante Marcoleta relentlessly questioned the sponsor representing the Ombudsman’s office, pressing for clarifications on a series of controversial actions and statements.

Marcoleta’s primary target was the new Ombudsman’s publicly espoused philosophy that he was willing to “bend the rules” of the law, provided he did not outright violate them.

The Senator argued strenuously that this statement, which the sponsor dismissed as merely a “figure of speech,” was wholly inappropriate for the head of the anti-graft body, asserting that such ambiguous language could severely confuse the public and undermine the core principle that the rule of law must be absolute and supreme.

The debate quickly escalated from philosophy to alleged procedural manipulation. Senator Marcoleta revealed an explosive allegation concerning a memorandum issued by the acting Deputy Ombudsman.

This office order retroactively abolished the previous “auto-docketing” rule and implemented a highly suspicious 10-day grace period, effectively removing cases filed within that window from the active docket and placing them under “evaluation.” Marcoleta forcefully argued that the timing of this directive was highly suspect, suggesting it was calculated to benefit a specific, high-profile individual—a former Secretary of Justice and Marcoleta’s “friend,” who was then applying for the very position of Ombudsman.

By undocketing the complaint filed against this individual days earlier, the order allegedly cleared the path for him to secure the necessary clearance and be included in the presidential shortlist, a move the Senator claims compromises the credibility of the entire appointment process.

Furthermore, Marcoleta voiced deep apprehension over the Ombudsman’s practice of announcing an “indicative timeline” for the issuance of orders for apprehension in high-profile cases. The Senator warned that the Ombudsman’s public pronouncements—such as predicting orders would be issued by a specific date—effectively preempt the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Courts, which are the only bodies with the constitutional power to issue such orders.

He contended that this practice creates a dangerous appearance of influence, giving the public the wrong impression that the Ombudsman’s office can direct the judiciary, thereby raising serious questions about the impartiality of the courts and the fairness of the entire judicial process for those targeted for apprehension.

Finally, the Senator raised fundamental questions about due process and transparency. He criticized the Ombudsman’s internal processes for not requiring the notification of a complainant, such as the one filed by “Mayor Baste,” when their case was effectively nullified or changed from “docketed” to “under evaluation.” Marcoleta insisted that a lack of notification denies citizens their constitutional right to due process, preventing them from filing motions for reconsideration.

He underscored that this lack of transparency—doing something that affects a case without informing the person who filed it—is a profound disservice to the public. As the budget hearing concluded, Marcoleta made a fervent appeal for the Ombudsman to consider these legislative concerns and adopt complete transparency in all its dealings to rebuild public trust in the institution responsible for safeguarding the nation’s integrity.