Ombudsman cuts ties with anti-graft group

The Office of the Ombudsman has cut its ties with an anti-graft watchdog that has been illegally using the name of the office to raise funds.

Assistant Ombudsman Evelyn Baliton announced that Bantay Bayan is no longer connected with the anti-graft office after its accreditation as a corruption prevention unit and government partner in the campaign against erring officials was cancelled in 2003.

Baliton also said that one of the group’s officials, Danilo Anyayahan, is facing a case before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, where the group is based.

Anyayahan, national organizer and director of the field coordination department of Bantay Bayan, has been charged with usurpation of authority following an entrapment operation conducted by the Ombudsman’s Task Force Marshal and the anti-graft division of the National Bureau of Investigation.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed before the Ombudsman’s office in Mindanao by former Zamboanga chapter members Ma. Theresa Macaso, Jeng-Jeng Handang, Melinda Handang, Bong Amil and Elizer Cabato.

In their affidavits, the complainants said they agreed to work for Bantay Bayan even without compensation because Pliny Domingo, who represented himself as a director of Bantay Bayan, said the group is affiliated with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The complainants also said Bantay Bayan, which has around 500 members nationwide, requires its members to pay a P500 membership fee and P500 for an identification card bearing the name of the Ombudsman’s office in bold lettering. They said they also paid P250 for a Task Force Zamboanga identification card and P30 in monthly dues.

Investigation also showed that the organization asked for a mobilization fee of P5,000 from anyone who seeks its help to resolve various criminal and graft-related cases, and even uses letterheads containing the name of the Office of the Ombudsman in its transactions with various groups and other government agencies.

Ombudsman officials said the filing of the case against the group should serve as a stern warning for those who intend to use the name of the anti-graft office for dubious purposes and illegal transactions. – Edu Punay