One of the best ways to measure the effectiveness of the Ombudsman is through the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) by Transparency International. It ranks countries on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) based on perceived levels of public sector corruption.
The Philippines’ CPI ranking has generally declined since 2014, hitting its worst score of 33, ranking at 117 among 180 countries in 2021 (noted as a significant decliner in the Asia-Pacific region). It improved slightly to 114 in 2024, the best rank since 2014 when it scored 38, ranking 85th among 175 countries. For context, in 2024, Denmark scored 90 (rank 1), while Somalia scored 11 (180).
This is why the Office of the Ombudsman is at a critical juncture. With the country’s decline in the CPI ranking, the institution tasked with safeguarding public integrity and accountability faces unprecedented threats. The Ombudsman’s credibility has been tested by high-profile cases and public skepticism about selective prosecution. However, these threats also present an opportunity for transformative reform that could restore public trust and strengthen democratic governance.
Firstly, the Ombudsman’s effectiveness fundamentally depends on its independence from political interference. Recent legal controversies surrounding the office, such as the case of Deputy Ombudsman Carandang, have underscored the need for constitutional safeguards that would insulate the institution from executive and legislative pressures.
Consider the Mamasapano incident investigation, where questions arose about the thoroughness of accountability measures. Had the Ombudsman possessed stronger investigative independence and resources, the public might have had greater confidence in the completeness of the inquiry. This case illustrates why institutional reforms must prioritize both autonomy and capacity-building.
Secondly, technological innovation should be used as a force multiplier. In my opinion, this is what is lacking in the current office leadership. Digital transformation represents perhaps the most promising avenue for enhancing the Ombudsman’s effectiveness. The government’s ongoing digitalization efforts provide a template for modernizing corruption detection and case management. Implementing sophisticated data analytics could identify patterns in government procurement that suggest fraudulent activity, utilizing technology to monitor irregular spending patterns.
The Ombudsman Act has given the office the power to conduct proactive investigations, not merely respond to complaints. The 2019 PhilHealth “mafia” scandal, involving systematic fraud worth billions of pesos, exemplifies how technology could prevent rather than merely respond to corruption. Advanced data mining tools could have flagged the anomalous claim patterns that characterized the Interim Reimbursement Mechanism fraud. By investing in predictive analytics and automated monitoring systems, the Ombudsman could shift from reactive investigations to proactive prevention.
Thirdly, there is the opportunity to strengthen local presence and accessibility. The centralization of Ombudsman operations in Manila creates accessibility barriers for citizens in remote provinces. Establishing fully empowered regional offices would democratize access to justice and enable more responsive investigation of local corruption. The success of the Commission on Audit’s regional offices in uncovering municipal-level irregularities demonstrates the potential impact of decentralized operations.
Some local governments, like Iloilo City, have made strides with transparency initiatives, including public disclosure of contracts and real-time budget monitoring. This can show how local partnerships can enhance accountability. The Ombudsman could replicate such collaborative approaches, working with progressive local governments to pilot innovative transparency measures that could be scaled nationally.
Fourthly, since the Ombudsman was patterned after an internationally recognized body, we must adopt international best practices. Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption offer instructive models for comprehensive anti-corruption strategies. Both institutions combine strong investigative powers with strong public awareness programs. The Ombudsman could adapt these approaches to the Philippine context, particularly in developing integrity testing programs for vulnerable government positions.
The recent passage of Republic Act 12009, modernizing public procurement laws, creates opportunities for the Ombudsman to impose new transparency requirements. By aligning investigative priorities with these legislative reforms, the office can maximize its impact on high-risk sectors where corruption traditionally thrives.
Lastly and most critically, the Ombudsman must rebuild public confidence through transparent operations, consistent enforcement, and public engagement. The perception of selective prosecution has undermined institutional credibility, making it essential to demonstrate equal treatment regardless of political affiliation.
Regular public reporting on case outcomes, investigation timelines, and resource allocation would enhance accountability and public understanding of the office’s work. The Ombudsman could implement regular briefings that explain investigative processes and outcomes without compromising ongoing cases.
Reforming the Ombudsman requires more than incremental adjustments — it demands fundamental reimagining of the institution’s role and capabilities. By embracing all the suggestions mentioned, the Office of the Ombudsman can transform from a reactive complaint processor into a proactive guardian of democratic integrity and accountability demanded by the Constitution.
(The author is an applicant for Ombudsman of the Philippines.)