FILE

It is early evening on a Sunday in the province. Dinner has just finished, fish still sizzling faintly on the stove, pork resting from the ihawan, and vegetable mustasa alongside buro cleared from the table, while the gentle drizzle of rain on the narrow streets mixes with the clatter of dishes being put away.

We had just completed editing an assignment for a client and were having a friendly chat with friends Francis and Marisol.

Then a flurry of cellphone alerts grabbed our attention: Senator Imee Marcos has criticized newly appointed Acting Ombudsman Dante Vargas, who assumed the position just four days ago, on August 27.

While public scrutiny is expected in politics, it is unfair to cast aspersions on Vargas without evidence, potentially harming his reputation and that of his family before he has even had a chance to serve.

The senator alleges that Vargas is under “tremendous pressure” and faces bribes to drop a case she filed against a high-profile official.

She claims this dismissal would pave the way for one of these individuals to gain a powerful position. Yet, she provides no names, no specifics, and no evidence.

Who exactly is pressuring Vargas? Who is offering the bribe?

Was Vargas really being pressured by these non-existent individuals as claimed by Senator Marcos, or was her own statement. loud, public, and accusatory, the real source of pressure on the Acting Ombudsman?

In throwing these unverified allegations into the public arena, the senator may unintentionally create the very tension she claims exists, placing Vargas under the spotlight before he can even act.

Three days into the job, and already whispers of pressure and bribery? If influence worked that fast, the Ombudsman’s office might as well operate on rumors.

He has been in office for three days. Let him have a fair chance to settle into the position before being judged or accused.

To question his character without proof is to undermine not just Vargas but the very institution of the Ombudsman.

The office is a constitutionally independent body mandated to act on complaints against public officials and ensure accountability in government service.

Undermining its leadership without cause sets a dangerous precedent.

Public institutions deserve judgment by their rules and processes, not by conjecture or political dramatics.

The Ombudsman’s mission, investigate, prosecute, and ensure accountability without fear or favor, is not suspended simply because the office is newly occupied.

In Manila, the headlines may roar, but in the Ombudsman’s office, work continues quietly, guided by law and procedure.

Senator Marcos’s statements, though perhaps meant as a warning, inadvertently underscore why the Ombudsman’s independence and institutional safeguards exist, to protect the office from unverified accusations and political pressure.

Accountability cannot be swayed by flamboyance, nor can justice be directed by who shouts the loudest online.

Political theatrics may dominate alerts, but they do not dictate how justice is served.

By publicly naming invisible bribe-givers, the senator may have caused more pressure on the Acting Ombudsman than any shadowy figure ever could.

It makes one wonder, who is really applying the pressure, and were these statements meant to push the Acting Ombudsman to act in line with the senator’s wishes regarding the case she mentioned?

Defending the Ombudsman is not defending Atty. Dante Vargas as a person. It is defending the office itself, the principle that no citizen, regardless of influence or wealth, is above the law.

Let him serve as Acting Ombudsman, guided by statute, procedure, and conscience, not by cellphone alerts or a senator’s flair for the dramatic.

From Aparri to Jolo, it is institutional integrity that sustains public confidence, not the theatrics of the powerful.

The office must continue its work uninterrupted, judging public officials by the law, not by headlines.

Madaling mag-akusa at magbintang, ngunit nasaan ang patunay?

Ang hustisya ay hindi nakakamit sa ingay ng galit o tsismis, kundi sa proseso at sa katapatan ng mga nanunungkulan sa mga tanggapang naatasang magbigay nito.