Pray tell, who now watches the watchdogs?

The use of the plural term is meant to be. And the question is amply graphic to highlight what is seriously ailing the system, nay, mess in public governance. Or more brutally frank, the government mismanagement.

Speaking of watchdogs, what comes is primarily the ethmologically Swedish Ombudsman, or that of New Zealand, as guardian against abusive, capricious, and ravenous acts of public officials. The Ombudsman is ideally capitalized to stress his awesome powers for honesty and propriety in governance. Copycat as Juan dela Cruz is, there's now the Ombudsman with web-like reach to institutionalize the vision of a Pinoy Xanadu.

At the inception, the now organic sentinel of decent state stewardship was all right. It served as the sword of Damocles over the heads of the imminently corrupt and the high-spenders of public funds, in tandem with COA as principal fiscal watchdog.

The magnitude of the Ombudsman's power over public personnel and administration is awesome. He probes into any complaint - written, verbal, and even anonymous ones - and can initiate on his own even without any complaint. The law was so enacted to instill fear into the "bad eggs" in government, with almost unlimited suasion into the niche and recesses of public records.

But like a slowly grating wheel of fortune, it now seems lazily grinding and, even often perceived as sleeping on his tasks. Complaints have the media railing against the Ombudsman and his deputies. Perhaps, idealistic Simeon Marcelo could have given up the high post as top sentinel after a couple of years' stint, unable to clean the veritable Augean stable of graft and corruption, in utter frustration.

And the lady incumbent is hounded by critiques of Rip Van Winkle oversleeping and favoritism to the Palace as payback to the FG, a backer former law classmate. Poor Ombudswoman Merceditas Gutierrez, hers is a case of damn if you do, damn if you don't.

Lately on the local level, the deputy Ombudsman-Visayas of about 70 personnel or so became the subject of COA's finding for overspending the staggering one-day affair bill of P178,000 at a posh beach resort. At round figure, each incurred public fund spending of P2,550, perhaps a reason to recall Benjamin Franklin's too much for a whistle admonition.

Granting the affair as governmental increment of the Ombudsman's main function - under the euphemism of "yearly assessment and mid-year planning and physical fitness activities" - the "socializing" aura does not escape notice. How does it fare, tacked against COA's other finding that the watchdog employees have also a total of P472,974.00 unliquidated cash advances as of last December yet? And further, for violating the law pegging only P1,200 for such employee costumes/uniforms and other related expenses, vis-à-vis Administrative Order 13 on austerity measures.

Being caught with fingers in the overspending cookie jar by COA, is awkward enough; a government watchdog caught en flagrante by another watchdog as regards public funds wastage. It's also timely to recall that the former has chafed from the alleged two-year delay in furnishing the latter's request for records/documents inre the COA's probe of the CICC project of the province.

Theoretically, all agencies and bureaucracy of the government down to the lowest barangay, are organic or built-in watchdogs of their own operations. The Constitution and the laws/rules/regulations are more than enough road maps to canalize the performance of all public personnel to act as self-watchdogs.

The Ombudsman, the Courts, COA, CSC, and all departments and bureaus, etc. have their own specialized watchdog functions. And yet, they seem inadequate to instill honesty, decency, propriety, and discipline, as well as prudence, in the husbandry of public funds… That apparently so, who now watches the watchdogs?

* * *

Email: [email protected]