Check point, rear guard or attack dog?

CTALK

- CITO BELTRAN

There was a time when the Office of the Ombudsman was undeniably respected, feared and honored. Their job was to go after government officials suspected or accused of corruption, abuse of authority or anomalous acts without fear or favor.

But over the decades, politics and political agenda have infected the integrity and reputation of the office, like a malignant tumor that has not been treated. This did not happen overnight or under one administration. A whisper here, some pressure there, some misinformation, appointments of unqualified individuals, even questionable integrity.

To the credit of some, they resisted the cancerous attacks of politics and pressure while others opted for the lesser of two evils: choosing their battles and justifying compromise as an act for the greater good.

In recent times, doubts have been raised about the office's independence and devotion to its calling. Perhaps it had to do with the background or political affiliation of nominees or appointees: fraternity brothers, former classmates or previous appointees in other posts.

Then there is the question of capability as much as competency. Several if not all appointees as ombudsman certainly had a reputation for their command of the law and government. But some lacked the needed managerial or executive skills to ensure the smooth operation of the office, its cases as well as the compensation and support for all its personnel. Many did not even have the necessary relationship with Congress to solicit proper operational funding.

Sadly, things seem to be going from bad to worse.