Ombudsman to pursue perpetrators in online leak of investigators

The Office of the Ombudsman said that it was going to investigate and identify individuals who publicly leaked the identities of its investigators to pursue legal actions due to potential safety concerns concerning the public servants.

The agency said that it had already coordinated with other investigative bodies to have “maximum legal penalties” imposed as punishment for the malicious crime.

“We are currently coordinating with the NBI and the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group to identify the perpetrators and will pursue maximum legal penalties under the Data Privacy Act and the Cybercrime Prevention Act against all individuals involved in the leak and dissemination of these confidential documents,” it said in a statement.

In addition, the office also addressed concerns pertaining to how it handles the filing of cases towards high-ranking officials.

It noted that the steps that it had recently undertaken in its ongoing probe were part of a “multi-stage legal strategy” to avoid any possible hurdles that it might face in the course of its probe.

“These initial measures are designed to secure the State’s interests and prevent the flight of individuals or assets while the universe of cases continue to mature,” it explained.

On Saturday, 25 April, the Ombudsman had sought for the Sandiganbayan to file precautionary hold departure orders (PHDO) on former Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero and businessman Maynard Ngu over links to the anomalous flood control scandal.

Earlier in the week, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez was issued a PHDO as he was supposed to fly to Singapore for a check-up on his angioplasty.

Romualdez has since questioned the filing of the order, urging the Ombudsman to inhibit itself from the flood control probe for their supposed prejudgment of the case against the Leyte 1st District Rep.

Amid such issues, the Ombudsman had also emphasized that it was not going to undertake the role of a lawyer in testing the credibility of witnesses and evidence.

It noted that the proper forum for such issues to be raised was going to be during the preliminary investigation, where sufficiency in evidence and probable cause are determined prior to the actual trial.

“It is the respondent’s responsibility to raise his own defenses; this Office will not preempt that legal process by litigating the case in the court of public opinion,” it noted.