Home
MANILA, Philippines—In the end, the allies of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez could not stop the impeachment juggernaut.
The majority of the House of Representatives’ committee on justice Tuesday proceeded to vote on the sufficiency of the two impeachment complaints filed against Gutierrez despite a plea from her lawyers and complaints of “railroading” by her outnumbered allies.
With the 55-member committee voting 38-7 in favor of the impeachment process, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the committee chair, announced that the House was pleading a general denial in Gutierrez’s behalf on the impeachment complaints filed separately by a group led by former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros and another led by Renato Reyes, secretary general of the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Those who tried to hold the fort for Gutierrez were Representatives Rodolfo Albano of Isabela, Mark Llandro Mendoza of Batangas, Ferdinand Martin Romualdez of Leyte, Danilo Suarez of Quezon, Giorgidi Aggabao of Isabela, Rex Gatchalian of Valenzuela City, Amelita Villarosa of Occidental Mindoro, Simeon Datumanong of Maguindanao, Orlando Fua of Siquijor, Pedro Romualdo of Camiguin, Arthur Yap of Bohol and Marc Cagas of Davao del Sur.
Hearings Wednesday
Tupas said the committee had scheduled its hearings on Wednesday and on Thursday and Monday, after which he expected it to determine whether there was probable cause to impeach Gutierrez.
He appeared to be aiming for a vote on the impeachment case before Congress goes on recess on March 24.
‘I ask for courage’
A one-third vote of the 283-member House is required to elevate the case to the Senate for trial.
Earlier, Northern Samar Rep. Raul Daza said the House was at a crossroads on the Gutierrez impeachment because its members were being asked to choose between “the road of caution and the road of courage.”
“Let’s take the risk. I ask for courage,” he said.
Cagas later claimed in an interview that Tuesday’s proceedings were the worst he had seen.
Asked to comment, Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño said the impeachment proceedings under the Arroyo administration were much uglier, “with him (Cagas) and his colleagues violating the minority’s rights and distorting the rules at every turn.”
Casiño said in a text message that the House had actually been “overly generous” to Gutierrez.
“What hypocrisy and gall of [former President] Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo loyalists to claim to be victims now that justice is catching up with them,” he said.
Oust plot
In a statement, Gutierrez said her rights had been violated “in the name of politics” and that she believed she would not get a fair shake from the House committee on justice.
She said there was a plot to oust her, thus adversely affecting the Office of the Ombudsman.
“It is unfortunate that the House justice committee still pushed through with the voting on the impeachment case against me despite a pending case on the same issue with the Supreme Court,” Gutierrez said.
“This is a bad precedent in our justice system because the ... committee only showed how the constitutional rights of an individual could be trampled upon in the name of politics,” she said.
According to Tupas, the justice committee’s job was made easier by Gutierrez’s refusal to file a plea.
In a letter read but ignored by the committee, Gutierrez’s lawyer, Anacleto M. Diaz, asked that the House defer action on the matter until the Supreme Court had decided with finality on her appeal to reinstate the status quo order that delayed the proceedings for five months.
Diaz wrote that the high court’s order lifting the status quo ante order would be final and executory only on March 5.
Overwhelming majority
“We assure you that once this process 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. She hopes and prays that your committee will allow her to end her term next year in grace and with honor and reputation intact for her and her family’s posterity,” Diaz added.
After two and a half hours of discussions, Tupas announced that an overwhelming majority of the justice committee had voted to declare the two impeachment complaints against Gutierrez sufficient in form and substance.
He said the committee voted 41-12 on the first impeachment complaint filed by Hontiveros’ group and 42-12 on the second complaint filed by Reyes’ group.
Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III also said the House had the right to proceed with the impeachment case even without waiting for a final decision from the Supreme Court.
“Impeachment is a political exercise, solely reserved for Congress, and must be equally respected by all pillars of social governance,” Tañada said, asking rhetorically what would the House do if the high court issued a status quo order to stop the impeachment of a magistrate of the tribunal.
Allies’ arguments
During the discussions, Romualdo appealed for “prudence,” saying that the committee would be violating Gutierrez’s right to due process and that it was still possible for the high court to reverse itself and reimpose the status quo order.
“I believe as a practicing lawyer, [Gutierrez] has 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration, which she did. I think it is proper for the House to wait [for the high court to rule on the motion],” Romualdo said.
“Supposing, and it is not far-fetched, the decision of the Supreme Court will be reversed. What will happen to the proceedings? Will it not be a waste of time? Will it not be a waste of [government] money?” he said.
Datumanong said Gutierrez’s filing of an appeal was part of her right to due process, which the legislature was bound to respect.
“The Constitution upholds every man due process and the right of reconsideration of a case in court is part of due process,” he said.
Cagas and Aggabao said the House should have waited for a few days to allow the high court to resolve the case.
“The issue is very simple. While it is true that we have the constitutional duty [to act on the impeachment complaints], we also have the moral obligation to respect the right of the respondent,” Cagas said.
Historic proceedings
Malacañang welcomed the developments at the House.
“The constitutional process is already unfolding, and as the head of a constitutionally independent office, the Ombudsman must weigh her options in light of these historic proceedings,” President Aquino’s deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte said in a statement.
Valte also said “accountability evades no one.”
“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,” Valte said.
She called on the people “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.”
Partisan politics
But Gutierrez said she had believed that the majority of the House justice committee would not engage in partisan politics, but that she had been proved wrong.
“I cannot expect any fair treatment from the justice committee at this point,” she said.
Gutierrez also said the committee voted upon a second impeachment complaint against her, which was prohibited by the one-year ban.
“This grave injustice is evident and therefore illegal,” she said.
She reiterated that the allegations against her were “false and baseless” and brought up again to “unjustly vilify me and the office I am representing.”
“This is not my fight alone but also for the Office of the Ombudsman as an institution that has been unduly undermined in the selfish quest to unfairly remove me from office,” she said. With reports from Leila B. Salaverria and Christine O. Avendaño
link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The majority of the House of Representatives’ committee on justice Tuesday proceeded to vote on the sufficiency of the two impeachment complaints filed against Gutierrez despite a plea from her lawyers and complaints of “railroading” by her outnumbered allies.
With the 55-member committee voting 38-7 in favor of the impeachment process, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., the committee chair, announced that the House was pleading a general denial in Gutierrez’s behalf on the impeachment complaints filed separately by a group led by former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros and another led by Renato Reyes, secretary general of the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Those who tried to hold the fort for Gutierrez were Representatives Rodolfo Albano of Isabela, Mark Llandro Mendoza of Batangas, Ferdinand Martin Romualdez of Leyte, Danilo Suarez of Quezon, Giorgidi Aggabao of Isabela, Rex Gatchalian of Valenzuela City, Amelita Villarosa of Occidental Mindoro, Simeon Datumanong of Maguindanao, Orlando Fua of Siquijor, Pedro Romualdo of Camiguin, Arthur Yap of Bohol and Marc Cagas of Davao del Sur.
Hearings Wednesday
Tupas said the committee had scheduled its hearings on Wednesday and on Thursday and Monday, after which he expected it to determine whether there was probable cause to impeach Gutierrez.
He appeared to be aiming for a vote on the impeachment case before Congress goes on recess on March 24.
‘I ask for courage’
A one-third vote of the 283-member House is required to elevate the case to the Senate for trial.
Earlier, Northern Samar Rep. Raul Daza said the House was at a crossroads on the Gutierrez impeachment because its members were being asked to choose between “the road of caution and the road of courage.”
“Let’s take the risk. I ask for courage,” he said.
Cagas later claimed in an interview that Tuesday’s proceedings were the worst he had seen.
Asked to comment, Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño said the impeachment proceedings under the Arroyo administration were much uglier, “with him (Cagas) and his colleagues violating the minority’s rights and distorting the rules at every turn.”
Casiño said in a text message that the House had actually been “overly generous” to Gutierrez.
“What hypocrisy and gall of [former President] Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo loyalists to claim to be victims now that justice is catching up with them,” he said.
Oust plot
In a statement, Gutierrez said her rights had been violated “in the name of politics” and that she believed she would not get a fair shake from the House committee on justice.
She said there was a plot to oust her, thus adversely affecting the Office of the Ombudsman.
“It is unfortunate that the House justice committee still pushed through with the voting on the impeachment case against me despite a pending case on the same issue with the Supreme Court,” Gutierrez said.
“This is a bad precedent in our justice system because the ... committee only showed how the constitutional rights of an individual could be trampled upon in the name of politics,” she said.
According to Tupas, the justice committee’s job was made easier by Gutierrez’s refusal to file a plea.
In a letter read but ignored by the committee, Gutierrez’s lawyer, Anacleto M. Diaz, asked that the House defer action on the matter until the Supreme Court had decided with finality on her appeal to reinstate the status quo order that delayed the proceedings for five months.
Diaz wrote that the high court’s order lifting the status quo ante order would be final and executory only on March 5.
Overwhelming majority
“We assure you that once this process 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. She hopes and prays that your committee will allow her to end her term next year in grace and with honor and reputation intact for her and her family’s posterity,” Diaz added.
After two and a half hours of discussions, Tupas announced that an overwhelming majority of the justice committee had voted to declare the two impeachment complaints against Gutierrez sufficient in form and substance.
He said the committee voted 41-12 on the first impeachment complaint filed by Hontiveros’ group and 42-12 on the second complaint filed by Reyes’ group.
Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III also said the House had the right to proceed with the impeachment case even without waiting for a final decision from the Supreme Court.
“Impeachment is a political exercise, solely reserved for Congress, and must be equally respected by all pillars of social governance,” Tañada said, asking rhetorically what would the House do if the high court issued a status quo order to stop the impeachment of a magistrate of the tribunal.
Allies’ arguments
During the discussions, Romualdo appealed for “prudence,” saying that the committee would be violating Gutierrez’s right to due process and that it was still possible for the high court to reverse itself and reimpose the status quo order.
“I believe as a practicing lawyer, [Gutierrez] has 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration, which she did. I think it is proper for the House to wait [for the high court to rule on the motion],” Romualdo said.
“Supposing, and it is not far-fetched, the decision of the Supreme Court will be reversed. What will happen to the proceedings? Will it not be a waste of time? Will it not be a waste of [government] money?” he said.
Datumanong said Gutierrez’s filing of an appeal was part of her right to due process, which the legislature was bound to respect.
“The Constitution upholds every man due process and the right of reconsideration of a case in court is part of due process,” he said.
Cagas and Aggabao said the House should have waited for a few days to allow the high court to resolve the case.
“The issue is very simple. While it is true that we have the constitutional duty [to act on the impeachment complaints], we also have the moral obligation to respect the right of the respondent,” Cagas said.
Historic proceedings
Malacañang welcomed the developments at the House.
“The constitutional process is already unfolding, and as the head of a constitutionally independent office, the Ombudsman must weigh her options in light of these historic proceedings,” President Aquino’s deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte said in a statement.
Valte also said “accountability evades no one.”
“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,” Valte said.
She called on the people “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.”
Partisan politics
But Gutierrez said she had believed that the majority of the House justice committee would not engage in partisan politics, but that she had been proved wrong.
“I cannot expect any fair treatment from the justice committee at this point,” she said.
Gutierrez also said the committee voted upon a second impeachment complaint against her, which was prohibited by the one-year ban.
“This grave injustice is evident and therefore illegal,” she said.
She reiterated that the allegations against her were “false and baseless” and brought up again to “unjustly vilify me and the office I am representing.”
“This is not my fight alone but also for the Office of the Ombudsman as an institution that has been unduly undermined in the selfish quest to unfairly remove me from office,” she said. With reports from Leila B. Salaverria and Christine O. Avendaño
link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]