By Rosemarie A. Zamora

THE INVESTIGATORS may become the investigated, as officials of the Office of the Ombudsman were slapped with administrative complaints filed in Malacañang on Tuesday, Oct. 3.

In their complaint, former congressmen Jacinto V. Paras of Negros Oriental and Glenn A. Chong of Biliran accused Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur H. Carandang of Grave Misconduct and Gross Dishonesty constituting Betrayal of Public Trust.

Mr. Paras filed the complaint at the Office of the President on Tuesday.

Mr. Paras said in his complaint that “unlawful disclosure of Mr. Carandang on the records of bank transactions of the President and his family which turned out to be falsified and spurious” caused them to file the complaint.

“Carandang claimed that the documents he showed to Henry Omaga-Diaz which turned viral to the entire country accusing the President of amassing billions is in fact denied by the AMLC or the Anti-Money Laundering Council,” the former congressman added.

A separate complaint was filed by lawyers Manuelito R. Luna and Eligio P. Mallari against Mr. Carandang and Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao Rodolfo M. Elman — who were charged with graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust — as well as the Fact-Finding Investigation Team/Field Investigation Unit of the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, were accused of gross misconduct.

According to Mr. Luna, the investigation team was liable for leaking information on the bank transactions of the Duterte family “when it’s still in the fact-finding phase.”

“Tapos nangialam na dito si Carandang and he has been reckless. Pumunta sa media, nagbigay ng statement, notwithstanding the fact na wala palang report coming from the AMLC, tapos sinasabi niya na kaparehas yung mga entries — where did he get those entries? Eh, the mere possession of bank transactions and bank accounts eh criminal offense na ‘yan sa bank secrecy law and mere disclosure also is a crime,” he added.

(Then, Carandang meddled at that point and he has been reckless. He went to the media, released a statement, notwithstanding the fact that there was no report at all coming from the AMLC, and he claimed the entries were similar — where did he get those entries? The mere possession of bank transactions and bank accounts is a criminal offense under the bank secrecy law, and mere disclosure is also a crime.)

Mr. Paras for his part said, “Feeling ko itong si Carandang, appointed ito ni Noynoy Aquino at yung Tindig Pilipinas at ‘yung ibang grupo ngayon. Alam niyo very, very disturbing, kasi right after na dinisclose ni Carandang na spurious and falsified yung mga dokumento, kasi ‘di naman ‘yun galing sa AMLC, the next day, nag-ano kaagad itong mga destabilizers, ‘yung mga Tindig Pilipinas, ‘yung mga iba, na mag resign ang ating Pangulo.”

(I think this Carandang was appointed by Noynoy Aquino and the Tindig Pilipinas and other groups now. You know, this is very, very disturbing, because right after Carandang disclosed that the documents are spurious and falsified documents, because they didn’t come from the AMLC, the next day, the destabilizers, Tindig Pilipinas and the others, immediately clamored for the President to resign.)

“Parang pinag-usapan na ito, parang (It seems this has been discussed and) synchronized to destabilize the government,” Mr. Paras also said, adding: [H]indi naman gagalaw itong si Carandang kung walang go signal ni (Ombudsman Conchita) Carpio-Morales.”

(It seems to be that it was planned to destabilize the government. Carandang will not act if [Conchita] Carpio-Morales did not give her go signal.)

For his part, Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto C. Abella also said on Tuesday: “The Office of the Ombudsman is showing its true political color. We must remind them that it is an independent and anti-graft body that is supposed to conduct an impartial and fair investigation.” Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto C. Abella said.

Mr. Duterte himself has stepped up his attacks on officials of the Ombudsman, amid their investigation into his alleged hidden wealth.

While the Ombudsman may only be removed by impeachment, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides in part, “A Deputy or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR