As I contemplate the coming retirement of Conchita Carpio-Morales from the position of Ombudsman, I find myself thinking about the origin and history of the Ombudsman concept and this country’s experience with this embodiment of good governance. Justice Morales will retire next month.
The concept of a government official vested with the exclusive authority to investigate and punish civil servants originated in Scandinavia, particularly in Sweden and Norway. Today’s Scandinavians are descendants of the once-powerful Vikings, and Viking life placed a high premium on discipline and personal accountability. It is therefore not surprising that the Ombudsman concept subsisted and flourished in the Scandinavia, which was the home of the Vikings.
During the period following the end of the Marcos regime—a regime that had seen the misuse and abuse of governmental power rise to unprecedented levels—some people within and outside the government thought of the Scandinavian concept of a sufficiently empowered individual whose sole responsibility would be to go after erring civil servants. Thus was the bill seeking the creation of an Office of the Ombudsman crafted and in due course approved by the Congress.
The Scandinavian countries’ experience with the Ombudsman concept over the decades has been uninterruptedly felicitous. That is entirely due to the fact that the Scandinavian parliaments have invariably selected for the position of Ombudsman individuals absolutely untainted by controversy and possessed of universally accepted reputations for personal and professional integrity.
Until Conchita Carpio-Morales came along, this country’s experience was the opposite. The explanation was that all of Justice Morales’s predecessors were all individuals widely perceived —this is the operative phrase—to be either tainted with controversiality of one kind or another or lacking in personal or professional integrity. Whether it was because of their partisan political activities or because of any questionable personal actions they had taken or because of bad professional decisions they had made, all of the predecessors of Conchita Carpio-Morales either were regarded as unsuitable for the position of Ombudsman or were regarded with disdain.
In contrast, the current Ombudsman came to her position with no credible opposition from any quarter of Philippine society. Indeed, her appointment was greeted with near-universal approbation. That was because Justice Morales possessed all the attributes of a Scandinavian-type Ombudsman: no taint of personal or professional controversy, an unblemished career record, no active affiliation with any political group and, last but not least, a demonstrated dedication to duty.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the issue of the succession to Conchita Carpio-Morales is generating a great deal of apprehension across the nation. International institutions and foreign governments are watching the situation with no less concern than domestic groups. That is not surprising, bearing in mind the present Ombudsman’s six-year record and considering the backgrounds and records of the individuals whose names are being mentioned in connection with the succession to Justice Morales.
To restate what I have already said above regarding the acceptability of the Ombudsman-to-be, whoever President Duterte appoints to succeed Justice Morales must be a person in the Scandinavian Ombudsman mold. The individuals whose names have been floated thus far need not apply—not Justices Teresita de Castro and Samuel Martires (controversial) and not Silvestre Bello III (controversial and partisan) and certainly not any PDP-Laban member or Rex Talionis fraternity member (partisan). The announcement of the new Ombudsman should be received by the nation with pleasure and without reservation.
President Benigno Aquino III’s selection of Conchita Carpio-Morales as Ombudsman is regarded by most Filipinos as an important part of Noynoy’s legacy to the Filipino people. It is my hope that the same thing will be said about President Duterte’s choice of the new Ombudsman.
