SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOUND TO OUST OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ
MANILA, MARCH 2, 2011 (STAR) By Paolo Romero and Jess Diaz [Photo is loading... Members of the House committee on justice vote on the two impeachment complaints against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez during a hearing yesterday. BOY SANTOS]
The House committee on justice voted yesterday to declare the two impeachment complaints against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez as having "sufficient grounds" in stormy proceedings that some lawmakers questioned as being out of order.
This developed as the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday gave the House committee on justice the go-signal to hear the impeachment case against the embattled Ombudsman pending finality of its decision last month allowing the case to proceed.
Voting 41-12 and 42-12, the House panel declared the separate complaints filed by rival militant groups Akbayan and Bayan, respectively, as having sufficient grounds, upon the motions of Deputy Speaker and Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, committee vice chair.
Declaring the complaints to have sufficient grounds means the committee has basis to proceed in investigating the complaint, before it can vote within a week on whether or not there is probable cause to impeach Gutierrez.
The SC did not stop the justice committee from proceeding with the impeachment of Gutierrez despite the filing of her motion for reconsideration (MR), which makes the ruling not yet final.
"That is the decision of the committee and a majority already voted to proceed," SC spokesman Midas Marquez told a press conference.
Marquez stressed that the SC did not restrain the committee from proceeding on the case pending finality of its ruling simply because Gutierrez did not ask for such a relief in her MR.
"The motion for reconsideration filed by Ombudsman Gutierrez did not contain a prayer for the Court to issue an order to stop Congress from
proceeding," he explained.
The SC earlier appealed for judicial courtesy on the part of the House justice committee and asked the lawmakers to await the finality of the ruling before proceeding with Ombudsman's impeachment.
This was the first time that impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez reached this far after similar complaints in the past did not progress. The voting was apparently drawn along political lines, with administration congressmen voting to proceed with the impeachment hearings.
Akbayan listed among Gutierrez's offenses her reported low conviction rate and failure to prosecute cases involving officials of the Arroyo administration. Bayan, for its part, said the Ombudsman failed to act on the P728-million fertilizer scam case, among others.
Gutierrez was not present during the hearing, and her lawyers wrote to the panel appealing that it wait first for the final ruling of the Supreme Court on her motion for reconsideration on its decision giving the committee the go-signal to conduct hearings.
"We assure you and your committee that once this process (in the Supreme Court) is completed and resolved against her, Mrs. Gutierrez will face her accusers and prove to your committee that the charges against her are false and baseless," Gutierrez's lawyer Anacleto Diaz wrote.
Justice committee chairman Niel Tupas just entered a "general denial" for Gutierrez, as she did not reply to the allegations.
The hearing began with several lawmakers appealing to the pro-impeachment lawmakers to wait for the high court's final ruling on Gutierrez's motion for reconsideration even as they questioned efforts to railroad the proceedings.
Some lawmakers questioned the objectivity of some panel leaders and members, as some of them apparently want to get back at Gutierrez on pending graft cases involving their relatives.
Alagad party-list Rodante Marcoleta said the committee violated its own rules or Section 52 on criminal procedures when it chose to proceed with the hearings without waiting for the final SC ruling.
Camiguin Rep. Pedro Romualdo, a constitutional expert, cited the opinion of retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban cautioning the House against railroading the impeachment complaint against Gutierrez.
Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong said Gutierrez's filing of a motion for reconsideration was part of her constitutional right to due process, which the legislature was bound to respect.
"The Constitution upholds every man due process and the right of reconsideration in case in court is part of due process," Datumanong said.
Davao del Sur Rep. Marc Douglas Cagas questioned the move of Tupas to schedule marathon hearings starting yesterday until Thursday, even when there is no session, and another round next week to rush the impeachment.
Tañada said the majority aims to bring to the plenary the committee's recommendation on Gutierrez's case on or before March 14.
Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello and Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares in separate manifestations said the public has waited years for the impeachment hearings to proceed, so there was really a need to rush the hearings for the sake of justice.
Fariñas also announced during the hearing that he would be filing an impeachment complaint tomorrow against SC justices who voted last September to issue a status quo ante order to favor Gutierrez's petition.
"You (SC justices) are not supreme and we (congressmen) are not timid," Fariñas said, adding the magistrates were not elected like congressmen. "The power emanates from the people, through us."
"If you insist (on judicial review), we will collide," he said, as he asked the public willing to impeach the justices to coordinate with him.
DIWA party-list Rep. Emmeline Aglipay, however, warned against threatening the SC justices with impeachment to force them to rule in accordance with what the majority congressmen want.
Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao maintained the 1987 Constitution grants the SC the power of judicial review.
Marquez said the SC also respects the plan of Fariñas to file an impeachment complaint against the justices who voted for the issuance of the status quo ante order in September last year.
"Let's just wait. I think he is a lawyer so he knows his law very well. And he's been a seasoned politician so let's just see," Marquez commented.
The SC official also vehemently denied allegations raised by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima that the position of Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Ma. Lourdes Sereno were not
considered in the issuance of the status quo ante order.
"All justices were furnished copies of that 60-page petition filed on a Monday, before their full-court session the following day. The status quo ante order was deliberated upon, that's why there was a voting of 8-3. Otherwise, the justices deferred action," he explained.
Among those who voted in favor of the status quo ante order were Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr. and Jose Perez.
Justices Carpio, Morales and Sereno dissented.
De Lima claimed that the SC proceeded with the voting on whether to issue the status quo ante order despite request from the three for more time to first read and study the 60-page petition and its annexes before voting.
If De Lima's claim was true, it means the three justices voted without studying the petition of Gutierrez.
Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion and Jose Mendoza were on official trips abroad.
In a separate press conference, De Lima criticized the Court for the status quo ante order issued on Ombudsman's impeachment case.
House likely to impeach Ombudsman
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. disclosed that the House of Representatives would most likely vote to impeach or remove Gutierrez from office.
Belmonte told ABS-CBN News Channel on Monday night that he believes the House would obtain the required one-third vote (94 votes) of all members to send the charges against the Ombudsman to the Senate for trial.
If it musters the necessary vote, the House under Belmonte will make history for impeaching the Ombudsman.
In November 2000, the chamber made history by voting to impeach then President Joseph Estrada.
Asked if he and his colleagues could deliver the needed number of votes, Belmonte said, "Yes, we can. We have a large coalition in the House."
However, he stressed that there would be no party or coalition stand on the impeachment of Gutierrez.
"Each member will be free to vote according to his conscience," he said.
Belmonte said he thinks that in making their decision on the Gutierrez impeachment case, many House members would take the cue from President Aquino's statements in the past on his dissatisfaction with the Ombudsman's performance.
The President has publicly announced that he wanted the incumbent Ombudsman to resign or to be removed from office so he could appoint a replacement who would aggressively pursue his campaign against graft and corruption.
But Belmonte said the President has not called any of his allies and that the Chief Executive was leaving the matter of impeaching Gutierrez to the House.
"As a matter of fact, we did not discuss the issue when we went to Malacañang for the LEDAC (Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council) meeting (on Monday)," he said.
He said he initially opposed the decision of the committee on justice to resume the impeachment hearings following the ruling of the Supreme Court throwing out Gutierrez's petition questioning the proceedings.
"But our colleagues and counsels told me there was no more legal obstacle to resume the process since the Supreme Court has lifted its order staying the proceedings," he added.
"Besides, we have a constitutional duty to perform and a constitutional deadline to meet. The Constitution commands us to decide on an impeachment case within 60 session days. The provision is not directory but mandatory," he stressed.
Tupas, justice committee chairman, has accused Gutierrez of delaying the impeachment process.
"She has already delayed the process by five months," he said, referring to the Ombudsman's decision to question the proceedings before the Supreme Court in September last year.
Fariñas believes that Gutierrez's impeachment is almost a certainty.
The vote in the justice committee yesterday is obviously a portent of things to come for the beleaguered Ombudsman.
Administration supporters overwhelmingly blocked attempts by allies of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to delay the impeachment process.
Arroyo, now a congresswoman representing Pampanga's second district, had appointed Gutierrez when she was then president. Gutierrez was a classmate of Arroyo's husband Miguel at the Ateneo law school.
Ombudsman hits House panel
Ombudsman Gutierrez expressed disappointment yesterday over how the House justice committee has allegedly committed a "grave injustice" by illegally proceeding with its impeachment proceedings against her despite a pending issue before the Supreme Court.
In a statement, she said it is unfortunate that lawmakers "still pushed through with the voting on the impeachment case against me despite a pending case on the same issue with the Supreme Court."
"This is a bad precedent in our justice system because the House justice committee only showed how the constitutional rights of an individual could be trampled upon in the name of politics."
Gutierrez said she was hoping that a majority of members of the committee "would rise above partisan politics but I guess I was wrong. I could not expect any fair treatment… at this point."
"The justice committee has to be reminded that what they voted upon is the second impeachment complaint against me and falls under the one-year ban. The same case is still pending before the Supreme Court. This grave injustice is evident and therefore illegal," she stressed.
Gutierrez maintained that the impeachment complaints filed against her were made with false and baseless accusations and were resurrected to unjustly vilify her and the office she represents.
"This is not my fight alone but also for the Office of the Ombudsman as institution that has been unduly undermined in the selfish quest to unfairly remove me from office," she said.
Gutierrez's legal counsel slammed the House justice committee for violating his client's constitutional right to due process.
Lawyer Butch Diaz said in a statement that the impeachment process is being carried out with undue haste.
"The committee on justice is trivializing and railroading the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Gutierrez in violation of her constitutional right to due process of law and its own rules," he stressed.
"When a simple and reasonable request to defer the proceedings until the Supreme Court shall have resolved our Motion for Reconsideration is so cavalierly denied and successive hearings are set as if the impeachment is the only issue of national importance that merits their undivided attention, can there still be doubt that the committee is proceeding with indecent haste," Diaz said.
He said the manner by which congressmen voted separately for two separate impeachment complaints is proof that the rule that only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against an impeachable official in a year is being violated.
"That is another telling proof that there are two proceedings and not one as required by the Constitution," he said.
Gutierrez herself and other officials of the Office of the Ombudsman refused to comment on what happened at the House, wherein the justice committee members voted that there is sufficient ground to proceed.
Gutierrez did not file a reply to the House panel despite being given a deadline to respond to the charges against her, and she instead went to the SC on Monday to file a motion for reconsideration, which seeks to reverse the SC's decision allowing Congress to proceed with the impeachment process.
She maintained that she has the right to appeal the ruling 15 days from receipt of the same which means that the SC's decision junking her petition questioning why two separate impeachment cases are being heard by the House justice committee when the Constitution only allows one is not yet final.
Meanwhile, Malacañang welcomed the House panel's decision to proceed with the impeach process against the Ombudsman.
"We encourage our fellow Filipinos to follow the proceedings closely – remaining informed of the charges and evaluating the evidence to be presented – so that we may all fulfill our roles in our collective responsibility to protect the interests of our country," deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said.
"This is a momentous occasion for Philippine governance, as it is the first time an Ombudsman faces impeachment proceedings for the betrayal of public trust due to her inaction on the cases put forward in the complaints," she said.
On record, however, Ombudsman Gutierrez is the second chief graft buster to face impeachment in Congress after Aniano Desierto, who survived an impeachment attempt in the late 1990s over his purported acceptance of television sets from a litigant. With Delon Porcalla, Jess, Diaz, Michael Punongbayan
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
