“The 99 new employees were found to have a salary grade level of 25 and above, which Remulla said are high positions in government earning around P111,000 monthly”
WHAT is wrong with the Office of the Ombudsman that has gotten its new head all riled up?
Soon after taking his oath of office, newly designated Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla discovered that his predecessor, Samuel Martires, had approved the hiring of 204 personnel, 99 of which occupied high positions in the anti-graft agency.
According to the new Ombudsman, the hiring of the 99 personnel occupying high positions in the agency is “questionable.”
Why? The 99 new employees were found to have a salary grade level of 25 and above, which he said are high positions in government earning around P111,000 monthly.
Remulla said “for them to be hired at the last minute and to occupy pivotal positions, highest-paid positions paid with a premium at the last minute is questionable.”
The new hires occupy the positions of Special Prosecutor,
Assistant Ombudsman, Director IV, and Graft Investigator. Many of the new hires are fresh lawyers but were already offered high salary grade levels.
Moreover, they are said to have a say in the functions of the office, from evaluation to preliminary investigation to prosecution of people.
Remulla has issued a memorandum order for them to tender their courtesy resignations.
The new hires are considered ‘midnight appointees’ as their appointment was made in the eleventh hour of the term of office of the person vested with the power to issue such an appointment.
The question now is whether the new hires will do so or fight tooth and nail to retain their positions.
The presence of ‘midnight appointees’ in the Office of the Ombudsman raises serious concerns about institutional integrity, politicization, and the potential undermining of the mandate of this constitutional office.
The 99 individuals were appointed to pivotal positions that directly influence investigations, prosecutions, and internal oversight.
Moreover, their appointment to senior executive-level positions usually requires extensive experience and vetting. The fact that many appointees are reportedly fresh lawyers raises red flags about merit and qualification.
The timing of their appointments suggests potential political motivations, especially if made during a transition period or just before the end of a previous administration’s term.
Since the hires are still within their six-month probation, the Ombudsman retains legal discretion to reevaluate or terminate appointments without violating tenure protections.
The issue bears watching as this poses institutional risks.
If unqualified or politically compromised individuals are embedded in prosecutorial or investigative roles, it could compromise high-profile cases and erode public trust.
There’s also the risk that retaining questionable appointments without scrutiny could set a precedent for future politicization of the Office of the Ombudsman.
What should Ombudsman Remulla do?
He can establish a review committee to assess the qualifications, appointment process, and potential conflicts of interest of the 204 hires.
He can also temporarily reassign or suspend the 99 high-level appointees from case-sensitive roles pending the outcome of the review, to prevent any undue influence or compromise.
The new Ombudsman should work hand-in-hand with the Civil Service Commission and ensure that the review process aligns with civil service rules and due process.
The relevant provisions on probationary employment and jurisprudence on midnight appointments could preempt legal challenges.
Ombudsman Remulla should also emphasize that this is not a political purge but a principled stand to protect the Ombudsman’s independence and credibility.
What should be very clear by now is that the Office of the Ombudsman must remain above politics.
This Constitutional office must ensure that those entrusted with the power to investigate and prosecute corruption are appointed based on merit, not political convenience.
This is not about personalities but protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions.
The Office of the Ombudsman is entrusted with the solemn duty to uphold integrity in public service. It should therefore be free from undue influence, committed to truth, and anchored in meritocracy.
It should not allow last-minute political maneuvering to compromise its mission. Those who investigate corruption must themselves be beyond reproach.
The integrity of our democratic institutions is what’s at stake here. The issue goes beyond appointments.
It is all about restoring trust in an institution that the Constitution vests with the power to keep government clean and honest. (Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
