Unleash the Ombudsman!

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

The current process implemented in the Office of the Ombudsman is largely opaque. Complaints are filed, docketed, and resolved with little public visibility until the office issues a press release or files a case. Many cases quietly die in the paperwork. One of the lessons learned from the tenure of the previous Ombudsman is that the partiality towards confidentiality has shielded powerful officials from public scrutiny. It is time to rethink this model. In a democracy where corruption has become systemic, sunlight is not just the best disinfectant—it is the only way to kill the rot and vile afflicting the polity.

According to Article XI, Section 13 (6), the Office of the Ombudsman shall: “Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.” Additionally, Section 15 (6) of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 mandates that the office must publicize matters covered by its investigation “when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence: provided, that the Ombudsman under its rules and regulations may determine what cases may not be made public: provided, further, that any publicity issued by the Ombudsman shall be balanced, fair and true;”.

Therefore, the new Ombudsman should open its investigations to the public and conduct proceedings in a manner similar to how Royal Commissions in countries like Australia conduct theirs: transparent hearings, public submissions, and live media coverage. Such a shift would mark a fundamental recalibration of how accountability is enforced in the Philippines. Royal Commissions have exposed corruption, institutional failures, and abuse of power; shaking entire political systems and forcing reforms. Their legitimacy comes not just from their legal mandate but from the fact that they are conducted under the unblinking eye of the public.

Filipinos have become cynical about exacting accountability because high-profile cases often vanish into bureaucratic black holes. In some instances, the public only learns of investigations after they are dismissed. By opening investigations, the Ombudsman would make every stage of the process visible. Citizens would see witnesses being examined, evidence being tested, and officials being held to account. This visibility would counteract the widespread belief that “wala rin mangyayari” and the usual criticism of “whitewashing” and cover ups. It can also prevent apprehensions that the prosecution of public officials is just political persecution.

Additionally, the fear of exposure is as powerful a deterrent as the fear of imprisonment. When officials know their actions might be dissected in public hearings, they will think twice. Royal Commissions have shown this effect repeatedly. In Australia, the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s public hearings have led to ministerial resignations, party leadership changes, and sweeping policy reforms—not because of court convictions, but because public exposure is politically fatal. This might not happen immediately in the Philippines considering how thick politicians have become. Nevertheless, it is a culture change worth aspiring for.

Critics will argue that open investigations risk prejudicing cases and violating the rights of the accused. But Royal Commissions have successfully balanced openness with fairness through strict procedural rules, legal counsel for witnesses, and the clear distinction between investigation and prosecution. The Ombudsman can adopt similar safeguards. Media groups can also craft confidentiality protocols to govern their coverage of these investigations. Transparency does not have to mean condemnation by the court of public opinion. Due process and fairness must still be the primary considerations in opening the investigations to the public.

The fact is secrecy no longer protects the integrity of investigations—it protects impunity. Meanwhile, public faith in accountability mechanisms has become dangerously low. In an era of considerable information access, the usual way of confidential investigations feels archaic and counterproductive. The Office of the Ombudsman must use communication technology to fulfil the demands of transparency and accountability. Innovation in this regard is sanctioned both by the constitution and its charter. If the Ombudsman is truly the “protector of the people,” then it must conduct its work not in the shadows, but under the full light of democratic scrutiny.