Ombudsman aspirant hit over remark vs anti-graft agency

MANILA, Philippines — Outgoing Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has slammed defense lawyer Edna Batacan, who is one of those aspiring to be the next chief graftbuster, for calling her office a “graft-ridden” agency.

“Of course, one applicant for this position said there’s a lot of corruption... You know, it’s parang sampal sa mukha (like a slap in the face) when they say that. Come on, come up with evidence,” Morales said.

During her interview with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) last week, Batacan, who used to be a lawyer of President Duterte, said the ombudsman has become a “graft-ridden” agency, where investigators can be bribed to sit on cases.

In a taped interview with Rappler uploaded on its website yesterday, Morales dared Batacan to present evidence on her allegation that corruption activities are rampant at the Office of the Ombudsman.

Batacan is among the 10 aspirants screened by the JBC for the ombudsman post, which will be vacated by Morales on July 26 after serving a seven-year term.

During her interview, Batacan said she herself was a “victim” of corruption in the ombudsman as she had to pay P50,000 just to get the status of a complaint against one of her clients.

“You have to spend P50,000 just to get the status of the case. In fact, in that office, even if you’re a lawyer – there’s such thing as transparency – you cannot get the status of the case,” Batacan ranted during the interview.

Batacan used to be a public prosecutor under the ombudsman before she switched to private practice.

Aside from Duterte, Batacan’s other former high-profile clients included former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo and businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, the alleged mastermind of the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam.

Morales admitted she felt “insulted” by Batacan’s repeated statements during the JBC interview that the office the latter aspires to head is corrupt.

“You say (the ombudsman) is corrupt , come up with evidence. If you are party to corruption, you are corrupt yourself,” Morales said, addressing Batacan.

“Yeah, nainsulto ako (I felt insulted). And she did not only say it once, she said it repeatedly,” Morales added.

Morales said she even asked one of the directors in the ombudsman about the supposed corrupt practices in the office and the official admitted that indeed corruption was present when Batacan was still a prosecutor.

“Excuse me. When I asked a director if it’s true that there’s a lot of corruption, (the official said) yes, maybe, that’s true – but during that applicant’s (Batacan’s) time. This I have to say because that is the reaction of this high official whom I inquired about,” Morales said.

“Excuse me, why don’t we look at each other’s records? Come on,” Morales added.

A lawyer, Ferdinand Topacio, also expressed his opposition to the nomination of Batacan to the position of ombudsman because she allegedly did not return her former client’s P8 million that was supposed to have been used as bribe money. 

Topacio sent a two-page letter to the JBC last June 18, saying the country cannot be “saddled” with an ombudsman for seven years with such “lack of honesty and moral uprightness.”

Topacio clarified that he has no personal grudge against Batacan but his opposition stems from her failure to return the money of a client. 

He said he and Batacan had a mutual male client, who later terminated her services as a lawyer because Batacan asked for P8 million to be given to certain persons in the ombudsman in exchange for the dismissal of the charges against the client.

“Nothing, however, came out of it since the case was nonetheless filed,” Topacio said.

The client also informed him that Batacan allegedly tried to charge him P1 million to cover the photocopying expenses for handling the case, but “was unable to support such demand for reimbursement.”

Topacio said due to the lawyer-client privilege, he could not disclose the identity of his client but that he was already trying to secure a waiver.

He also said that he is willing to face Batacan before the JBC in executive session so he would be able to divulge more details within the bounds of the mandates of legal ethics.