SC okays House hearings on impeachment vs Ombudsman

UPDATED 7:37 p.m. - The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday allowed the House of Representatives' justice committee to push through with the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Voting 7-5-2 with one abstention, the SC dismissed Gutierrez's petition against the House panel, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez announced at a news briefing. The copy of the Supreme Court's decision is unavailable as of posting time. The ruling effectively lifted the SC's status quo ante order, which stopped the House panel proceedings on the Ombudsman's impeachment last September. Gutierrez had questioned the legality of the House justice committee's acceptance of two impeachment complaints against her, despite the constitutional ban on more than one impeachment proceedings in one year. The first complaint was filed by the group by former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros, while the second was filed by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN). Voting patterns The seven justices who voted to dismiss the Ombudsman's petition were: Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Roberto Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, Eduardo Nachura, and Martin Villarama Jr. They ruled that Gutierrez's right to due process was not denied when the House panel found as sufficient and substantial the two impeachment complaints against Gutierrez. The justices added that Gutierrez can exhaust legal remedies — such as filing an answer at the level of the House justice committee — instead of seeking redress from the SC right away. "The Supreme Court majority has decided there is no denial of due process since respondent [Gutierrez] can file an answer after the impeachment complaints have been declared sufficient in form and substance," said Marquez. Meanwhile, the five justices who voted in favor of Gutierrez's petition were: Chief Justice Renato Corona, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and Diosdado Peralta. According to them, Gutierrez's right to due process was violated when the House justice committee supposedly failed to publish its Rules of Impeachment. "The dissent mainly is saying that there is no duly published rules and this violates due process," said Marquez. Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Jose Perez partially concurred with the majority and said the House panel could admit the complaint filed by Hontiveros and ban the second complaint filed by BAYAN. "We have two justices concurring in part because they believe that while the second impeachment complaint might be banned, there is nothing to stop the first impeachment complaint from proceeding," said Marquez. Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco inhibited himself from the proceedings because his son, Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco, belongs to the House justice committee. Ombudsman to appeal SC ruling Shortly after the SC conducted its voting, the Office of the Ombudsman issued its statement saying Gutierrez will file a motion for reconsideration. "The Office had not yet received the Ombudsman’s official copy of the said Decision. Pending such receipt, the Ombudsman is still studying her options, including the filing of a motion for reconsideration on the said Decision," said the statement. At a press briefing in Malacañang on Tuesday, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said, "We welcome that development but again we leave it to the House to proceed with their decision to continue the impeachment proceedings against the Ombudsman." Meanwhile, BAYAN secretary-general Renato Reyes Jr. welcomed the SC decision, saying the group is “looking forward to presenting evidence... which will bolster the impeach raps." “The Ombudsman impeachment would be a historic first if it pushes through. It would test the mechanisms of accountability of government institutions under the Aquino administration," he said in a text message on Tuesday. Judicial courtesy For his part, SC spokesman Marquez said because the SC's ruling has not yet attained finality, the House justice committee must exercise judicial courtesy. "I think it would be more prudent if the House can respect this procedure. There's still a 15-day period to file a motion for reconsideration. I think it will be more prudent if we wait for the finality of the decision," said Marquez. Gutierrez's petition In her petition filed on September 13 last year, Gutierrez had argued that the House committee violated the 1987 Constitution by accepting two impeachment complaints even if the Charter bans two impeachment proceedings against an impeachable official within the same year. Gutierrez invoked Section 3(5), Article XI of the Charter, which provides that "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official [in this case, the Ombudsman] more than once within a period of one year." In her petition for certiorari and prohibition, Gutierrez asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the House committee on justice from hearing the two impeachment complaints. Acting just one day after Gutierrez filed the pleading, the SC issued a status quo ante order that obliged the House committee to return to the previous situation before it issued the two resolutions that found the complaints sufficient in form and substance. The SC’s September 14 order in effect temporarily suspended the House impeachment proceedings. However, as Marquez said on Tuesday, the court's decision dismissing Gutierrez's petition effectively lifted the status quo ante order. "Since the decision already dismissed the petition, then that status quo ante order has no leg to stand on anymore," said Marquez. Why her impeachment is sought Gutierrez, who was named to the post in 2005, has been accused of protecting former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo by allegedly sitting on cases where the former First Couple have been implicated. Gutierrez and Mr. Arroyo were batch mates at the Ateneo School of Law. Hontiveros' impeachment complaint against Gutierrez listed the following alleged wrongdoings of the Ombudsman:

Failure to act promptly on cases filed against the Arroyo couple and other public officials involved in the overpriced $329-million national broadband network deal, which Mrs. Arroyo suspended in September 2007;

Incurring inexcusable delay in the investigation on the death of ensign Philip Pestaño, with the United Nations even calling the Ombudsman to task for failure to probe the case;

Issuing a decision to uphold the legality of the arrest and involuntary detention of Hontiveros by the Philippine National Police in 2005;

Failure to investigate the P1-million dinner for Mrs. Arroyo's presidential party at the Le Cirque restaurant in New York;

Repeated failure to take prompt action on various cases involving Mrs. Arroyo such as the Mega-Pacific scam, among others;

Refusal to grant ready access to public records such as the Statement of Assets, Net Worth and Liabilities of former Pampanga Rep. and incumbent Ang Galing Pinoy pary-list Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo. Miriam: SC ruling is ‘good law’ In an interview with reporters on Tuesday, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said she has yet to read the SC ruling but welcomed it as a "good law." "If the Supreme Court issues any kind of restraining order against an impeachment complaint, in effect that will negate the power of the Congress to try and actually decide impeachment cases," the lawmaker said. Santiago reminded the public, however, that the entire impeachment process still has a long way to go. She estimated the SC could take at most three months to make its decision final and executory. The Lower House could also take another three months to deliberate on the impeachment proceedings, which means the Senate can start exercising its impeachment role six months from now at the earliest. "We must recall that there is a strict requirement of at least one-third of the entire House, and there is two-thirds in the Senate to impeach. If we cannot muster these votes, sometimes, it's just a waste of the resources of our country that could otherwise be spent on other economic and policy matters," Santiago said. For his part, Senator Francis Pangilinan said the court's latest decision helped take away doubts on the SC’s supposed allegiance to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who appointed all incumbent SC justices except for one. "There was this growing perception that the [SC] was taking the cudgels for [Arroyo] whose administration has cases that have been gathering dust in the Ombudsman," Pangilinan said. Merci in the Senate Despite the public attention shored up by Senate inquries, Santiago admitted she was not at all "excited" to see Gutierrez face off with senators during an impeachment hearing. "Impeachment is not a regular function of the legislature. Our main function is to pass laws," she said. The veteran lawmaker also lamented that some of her Lower House colleagues who are not lawyers and might not even be familiar with impeachment proceedings. Although they should not be blamed for not being one, Santiago said: "You have to come from a very extensive background to be able judge a case correctly according to the standards set by the legal system and by the long experience of our judicial precedents." "Sometimes it's very dangerous to give the power of impeachment to people who have never had the experience with our judicial system," she added. The House justice committee has already said it was mulling on conducting marathon hearings for the Ombudsman's impeachment. (See: Add to SC okays House hearings on impeachment vs Ombudsman)– with Amita Legaspi, Andreo Calonzo, Mark Merueñas/JV, VVP, GMA News