Latest news with #OfficeoftheOmbudsman
HKFP
3 days ago
- Politics
- HKFP
In deleted Ombudsman reports saga, silencing legislators hinders their ability to hold authorities to account
The saga of the deleted reports on the Ombudsman's website continues. So far, he has apparently refused to restore digital copies of pre-2023 investigation reports, annual reports, and other data for easy public access. The reasons provided for removing them (data overload, they're dated, government departments have accepted their recommendations, etc.) are generally unconvincing. In many cases, the problems that necessitated the investigations continue. Chief Executive John Lee pointed out that the Ombudsman is independent of the government. He 'expressed confidence that the Office of the Ombudsman will do its work effectively and address public concerns,' RTHK reported. The deleted reports saga raises significant issues about Hong Kong's constitutional system of dual accountability. According to Basic Law Article 43, the chief executive, who is the head of the government, is accountable both to the central government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). In their book, The Constitutional System of the Hong Kong SAR, law scholars Albert Chen and Yap Po Jen call this 'the most important and distinctive feature of the HKSAR's political system.' They go on to say: 'Insofar as the central authorities' interest in and views on Hong Kong's development converge with those of the general public in Hong Kong, there should be no conflict in the discharge of these dual roles. 'On the other hand, when there is a divergence in the interests of the central authorities in the HKSAR and the interests of Hong Kong as perceived by a majority of Hong Kong's population, the CE would be placed in an unenviable position' (emphasis mine). Chen and Yap write that it is not easy for the chief executive to retain the trust and confidence of both Beijing and the people of Hong Kong. This formulation recognises that there could be multiple understandings of the interests of Hong Kong: the central government's understandings, the local government's understandings, and understandings as perceived by most of the people of Hong Kong. These understandings might converge, or not. In the Ombudsman saga, likely only the local government's and the people of Hong Kong's understandings are involved. Chen and Yap point out that in Hong Kong's system, the executive and legislative authorities are expected to both 'coordinate with and check each other.' Both the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration provide that 'the executive shall be accountable to the legislature.' That is, the Legislative Council (LegCo) should play a key role in holding the government to account. The chief executive acknowledged 'public concerns' and 'public debate' on the deleted Ombudsman reports. A handful of legislators have spoken up. One report identified six LegCo members who spoke out or raised questions: Michael Tien, Doreen Kong, Tik Chi-yuen, Tang Ka-piu, Eunice Yung, and Tommy Cheung. These are mainly pro-establishment patriots. Subsequently, the local media reported that authorities silenced LegCo on this issue. Authorities sent out 'warm reminders' that LegCo members should not 'follow up' or 'comment' on the Ombudsman saga. This gives the impression that LegCo is simply an extension of the government, speaking for the government only. What of its checking role? If, as Chen and Yap write, accountability to the HKSAR means accountability to the interests of Hong Kong as perceived by a majority of Hong Kong's population, why did the authorities silence LegCo? Perhaps they believe that silencing criticism is in the interests of the Hong Kong people, or authorities perceive that LegCo is insufficiently representative of the Hong Kong people and therefore should have no right to speak. This seems unlikely given the efforts the government made during the 2021 legislative elections to convince us that LegCo was representative. When authorities silence LegCo, who speaks for the interests of Hong Kong as perceived by a majority of the people? In the past, Hong Kongers have valued accountability, openness and transparency. Indeed, that is one reason why 55 to 60 per cent of voters consistently supported pan-democrats in elections when they had the opportunity. As late as 2018, the HKSAR government also declared that it supported these values. The Ombudsman's action seems to undermine them, arguably not in the interests of Hong Kong. An unanticipated consequence of the saga may be to boost the role and credibility of civil society in Hong Kong. The deleted reports are of considerable value to all those interested in public policy. Digital copies of all the Ombudsman's pre-2022 reports are available on the Wayback Machine. Non-government organisations may download them, provide searchable catalogues and make them publicly available. Would an alternative Ombudsman's website be in the interests of Hong Kong? Is this really what the authorities want? The Ombudsman's deleted reports saga tells us that Legco has lost some capacity to hold authorities to account. It tells us that officials expect Legco to speak for the government and not for the people of Hong Kong. Yet, LegCo members should be able to speak out on issues such as this. Authorities should understand that speaking out is not 'attacking' the government but trying to improve local governance. LegCo members' constitutional role includes checking the government. Authorities should relax the gag order on LegCo members so that they can better serve the people. This will build trust in our institutions, which is in everyone's interest. HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities.
GMA Network
23-05-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Camiguin brgy execs face raps over road closure
Officials of Bonbon, Catarman, Camiguin are facing charges before the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly closing a national road without an ordinance. Chairman Camilo Apugan and all members of the barangay council are being accused of usurpation of legislative powers under Article 239 of the Revised Penal Code and for violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713). The complaints were filed by former barangay chairman Christopher Rodriguez in August 2024. However, the Ombudsman only issued the order for the respondents to file their counter-affidavits on April 30, 2025, after Rodriguez completed filing the documents required. The case stemmed from the week-long closure of a national road in May 2024 to hold a 'night café' from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. allegedly without an ordinance from the barangay council or from the Sangguniang Bayan. 'Hassle kaayo sa mga commuters ibabaw gipaagi. Piot ang dalan dilikado ngitngit kun gadali ka malangan ka og abot,' Rodriguez said. 'Nakakuha ko certification sa vice mayor nga wala sila ordinance ana na purpose,' he added. In the three-page order, the Ombudsman said 'the respondents' failure to file their counter-affidavits within the aforesaid period shall be deemed a waiver of their right to submit controverting evidence and the investigation shall proceed accordingly.' 'Thereafter, these cases shall be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties whose presence may be dispensed with, unless otherwise required for clarificatory questioning,' reads part of the order. For his part, Apugan said he will consult his legal counsel first before issuing any statement.
GMA Network
23-05-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Ombudsman issues show cause order vs outgoing Cebu guv
The outgoing governor of Cebu received a show cause order from the Office of the Ombudsman directing her to show cause within five days why she should not be cited for indirect contempt for "continuously defying an order" that places her under preventive suspension for six months. The show cause order was issued on May 22, 2025. The show cause order was signed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires in relation to an order on Governor Gwendolyn Garcia's preventive suspension dated April 23, 2025. In a press statement posted on Sugbo News (Capitol's official news portal), Atty. Alex Avisado, legal counsel for Garcia, said that 'for the respectful information and guidance of the Honorable Ombudsman, there was no defiance, Gov. Gwen Garcia actually challenged the legality of the issuance of the Preventive Suspension Order before the Court of Appeals by way of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.' 'On 15 May 2025, the Special Seventeenth (17th) Division of the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting the Ombudsman and all officials under his authority from implementing the Order dated 23 April 2025. With the issuance of this TRO from the Court of Appeals, there is therefore no legal basis to cite Gov. Garcia for Indirect Contempt," he added. "Like any ordinary citizen, she merely availed of her legal remedies. Fortunately for Gov. Gwen Garcia, the Court of Appeals sustained her contention that this Preventive Suspension Order is patently illegal and was issued with grave abuse of discretion,' the rest of Avisado's statement reads.
GMA Network
22-05-2025
- Politics
- GMA Network
Ombudsman tells Cebu's Gwen Garcia, DILG to explain defiance of suspension order
The Office of the Ombudsman has directed Cebu Governor Gwen Garcia to explain her failure to heed its earlier suspension order. Ombudsman Samuel Martires also sought an explanation from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) why it has yet to implement the suspension, which was supposedly "immediately executory." In a communication dated May 19, 2025, the Ombudsman ordered Garcia "to show cause within five days from receipt thereof why you should not be cited for indirect contempt for continuously defying the 23 April 2025 Order of the Ombudsman preventively suspending you from office." The suspension does not exceed six months. It added that Garcia received a copy of the suspension order on April 29, 2025, and despite its "immediately executory nature" of the implementation, it said the governor "publicly avowed not to abide" by it. The order addressed to DILG Undersecretary Rolando Puno said that in a press conference held on May 9, 2025, the official said the agency will not act on the suspension order because it was still awaiting the response of the Commission on Elections to its query "as to the need to secure the Commission's approval for the suspension of elected officials during the campaign period." The Ombudsman said this was the DILG's response "when you office knows fully well that the Order has already been implemented and is immediately executory." "In view of this, you are hereby ordered to show cause within five days from receipt thereof why you should not be cited for indirect contempt for tolerating or consenting to the acts of defiance of respondent Garcia to the lawful order of preventive suspension issued against her..." Garcia is accused by a certain Moises Deiparine of granting a special permit to Shalom Construction, Inc. last May 14, 2024 without an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) or a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or prior study/consultation with other relevant government agencies. Garcia ran for a third consecutive three-year term as Cebu governor. However, she lost to Pamela Baricuatro. GMA News Online reached out to Garcia and the DILG for a comment. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
HKFP
19-05-2025
- Politics
- HKFP
Hong Kong gov't watchdog removes decades of reports, other documents for ‘website management'
Hong Kong's government watchdog has removed decades' worth of annual and investigative reports, as well as other documents, from its website, saying the move is for 'more effective website management.' Apart from annual reports and investigation reports, the Office of the Ombudsman also removed mediation examples and press releases dated earlier than 2023 from its website. The Ombudsman's website currently only shows investigation reports and press releases from April 2023 onwards, while the earliest available mediation examples are dated September 2024. An archived version of the Ombudsman's website shows that investigations dating back to 2013-14 were still accessible as of at least January. Only two annual reports – for the years 2023-24 and 2022-23 – are now available on the website, while previously, annual reports dated as far back as 2003-04 were accessible. The Ombudsman's page on cases relating to the government's Code on Access to Information now redirects users to its Direct Investigation Operations page. In an emailed reply on Friday, the Ombudsman said, 'To maintain accuracy and make available the latest and relevant reports for public information as well as for more effective website management, we have refreshed the content to include information on the latest three years.' According to the Ombudsman, it will retain and not delete published information, while requests for information not included on the website should be made in writing to the office. It did not elaborate on the procedure for requesting information. 'Must be properly preserved' Addressing the Ombudsman's move, former secretary for the civil service Patrick Nip said on Friday that good governance 'emphasises transparency, public engagement, and accountability.' 'Reports and surveys published by government bureaux and departments, public organisations, and independent commissions are important references,' he said in a Facebook comment replying to veteran journalist Lam Miu-yan's post on the Ombudsman's decision. 'Unless there are special reasons, they must be properly preserved and made easily accessible to the public,' Nip added. Lam herself said she understood that departments and organisations would revise their websites now and then, 'but when choosing what to keep, they should retain information of significant reference value to the public, so that the public can browse it free of charge at any time.' 'Even if some information has to be cut to 'make room,' it seems excessive to cut records down to three years,' she said. Lawmaker Gary Zhang shared Lam's post, saying that the Ombudsman, as a 'gatekeeper' for the government's code, should aim beyond the statutory requirement when it comes to matters involving access to information. 'I really cannot think of any reason that can justify deleting the previous reports,' he said.
