1

HOUSE RESOLUTION IMPEACHING MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ FOR BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST

By Judy M. Taguiwalo With a vote of 210 for, 47 against and 4 abstention, the Lower House approved the resolution impeaching Ombudsman Gutierrez. Only 1/3 of the total members of the HOR or 95 votes were needed to pass the resolution. The impeachment now moves to the e Senate where 2/3 or 16 votes out of the 23 senators aren needed to convict the Ombudsman. ACT Teachers partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio explained his vote for the impeachment: " Walang aksyon, walang hustisya. Sa wakas, naaaninag na ang araw ng pagtutuos." RESOLUTION IMPEACHING OMBUDSMAN MA. MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ FOR BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST Introduced by: Representatives Niel C. Tupas, Jr., Rodolfo C. Farias, Reynaldo V. Umali, Romero Federico S. Quimbo, Raul A. Daza, Lorenzo R. Taada III, Neri J. Colmenares, and Kaka J. Bag-ao RESOLVED, that Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez, is impeached for betrayal of public trust pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines by the House of Representatives of the Republic of the Philippines in its own name and that of the Filipino people against said Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against her. ARTICLE I THE FERTILIZER FUND SCAM Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by inexcusably failing (1) to act promptly on the complaints filed and (2) to file the appropriate cases in court against high ranking government officials involved in the anomalous use of the Php728 Million Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) Program or the Fertilizer Fund Scam. Notwithstanding the filing of complaints and the findings and recommendations in the Task Force Abono Reports in 2006, the Senate Committee Report No. 54 in 2006 and the Commission on Audit to file the appropriate charges against then Agriculture Secretary Luis Cito Lorenzo and then Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Joc-Joc Bolante, among others, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has inexcusably failed to act promptly on the complaints

pertaining to the Fertilizer Fund Scam for more than five (5) years and failed to file the appropriate cases in court. This is contrary to the Ombudsmans duty to give priority to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, and complaints involving grave offenses and large sums of money and/or properties. Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office. Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. ARTICLE II EURO GENERALS SCANDAL Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by inexcusably failing to file the appropriate cases in court against Philippine National Police (PNP) Comptroller P/Dir. Eliseo De la Paz of the Euro Generals Scandal, despite the latters public admission under oath of a criminal offense and the findings of criminal liability by various government bodies. On 15 November 2008, P/Dir. De la Paz, testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and Committee on Foreign Relations, and openly admitted therein that he brought an amount equivalent to more than US$10,000.00 outside the Philippines without declaration thereof to the Philippine Bureau of Customs. Despite the lapse of more than two (2) years from the admission made by P/Dir. De la Paz and the submission to Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez of the findings of the PNP that P/Dir. De la Paz violated laws, as well as regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has failed to file the appropriate cases in court against P/Dir. De la Paz. Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office.

Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. ARTICLE III THE MEGA-PACIFIC DEAL Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by absolving from any criminal liability the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) officials and private individuals involved in the anomalous billion-peso contracts for the automation of the 2004 elections known as the Mega Pacific Deal. Notwithstanding the findings of the Senate and the Supreme Court in Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, et. al. vs. Commission on Elections et. al. (GR No. 159139, January 13, 2004), that COMELEC and its officials concerned must bear full responsibility for the failed bidding and award, and held accountable for the electoral mess, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has absolved from any criminal liability the COMELEC officials and private individuals involved in the Mega Pacific Deal. Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office. Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. ARTICLE IV NBN-ZTE DEAL Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by using the powers of her high office, personally and through her subordinates and agents, to wrongfully exclude President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from investigation and absolve her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, a former classmate of the

Ombudsman, from criminal prosecution stemming from the scandalous NBN-ZTE broadband contract (the NBN-ZTE Deal). Notwithstanding the evidence presented before the Office of the Ombudsman implicating former COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Romulo Neri and Jose Miguel Arroyo, the Office of the Ombudsman indicted Benjamin Abalos and Romulo Neri but absolved Jose Miguel Arroyo in the NBN-ZTE Deal, and displayed gross incompetence by inexcusably failing and refusing to investigate President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office. Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. ARTICLE V ENSIGN PHILIP PESTAO CASE Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust, personally and through her subordinates and agents, by failing to act promptly and by wrongfully absolving the Philippine Navy officers and personnel implicated in the death of Navy Ensign Philip Andrew Pestao, notwithstanding the findings and recommendations of the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights and on National Defense and Security, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The eventual dismissal of the Pestao case, coupled with the delay in resolving the same, which led to the issuance by the United Nations Human Rights Committee of its Views declaring that the Philippine Government violated its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), manifests that Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has abandoned the Ombudsmans statutory and constitutional duties, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, has acted in a manner contrary to her oath, the Constitution, law and justice, and has betrayed the public trust, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people, rendering her unfit to continue in office. Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under

the Republic of the Philippines. ARTICLE VI LOW CONVICTION RECORD Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, to act promptly on complaints against public officials or employees of the government and enforce their administrative, civil, and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people, and has betrayed the public trust by her dismal performance, as shown among others, by the Office of the Ombudsmans low conviction record, manifesting a level of incompetence and inefficiency amounting to a dereliction of duty. Upon assumption by Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez as head of the Office of the Ombudsman in December 2005, the conviction record for Ombudsman-conducted prosecutions has declined, highlighted by her performance in 2008 up to the filing of the impeachment complaints, and even includes a high number of plea bargaining agreements entered into by the Office of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez has acted in a manner that violates her oath and constitutional duty, has undermined the integrity of her office, has brought disrepute to the Office of the Ombudsman, and has acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution, law and justice, to the prejudice and manifest injury of the Filipino people rendering her unfit to continue in office. Such conduct of Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez warrants her conviction for betrayal of the public trust, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines. Adopted, NIEL C. TUPAS, JR. Chairman Committee on Justice RODOLFO C. FARIAS ROMERO FEDERICO S. QUIMBO REYNALDO V. UMALI RAUL A. DAZA

(The first part of this column appeared on Friday.) CHARGE: In the canceled contract for the Chinese company ZTE to build a national broadband network for the go-vernment, Notwithstanding the evidence . . . implicating former COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Romulo Neri and Jose Miguel Arroyo, the Office of the Ombudsman indicted Benjamin Abalos and Romulo Neri but absolved Jose Miguel Arroyo in the NBN-ZTE Deal, and displayed gross incompetence by inexcu-sably failing and refusing to investigate President Gloria Maca-pagalArroyo. RESPONSE: The Ombudsman did not participate in the Joint Resolution, dated 21 April 2009, which dismissed the case against then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel T. Arroyo for the NBN-ZTE Deal. The Ombudsman inhibited herself from the case precisely to avert claims that she is partial and biased in favor of her former classmate, Jose Miguel T. Arroyo. Further, the reply asserts: The Office of the Ombudsman, through its Overall Deputy Ombudsman, . . . excluded the Presidents husband, Jose Mi-guel T. Arroyo, on the ground that no evidence directly or indirectly linking him to the NBN-ZTE Deal was presented. Only surmises and conjectures were adduced and these, according to the Special Panel, cannot be given any evidentiary weight. The response added: The non-inclusion in the information of the then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is legally justified because she was immune from suit. CHARGE: In the Ensign Philip Pestao case, Ombudsman Gutierrez violated her constitutional and statutory duties, as protector of the people, . . . and has betrayed the public trust, personally and through her subordinates and agents, by failing to act promptly and by wrongfully absolving the Philippine Navy officers and personnel implicated in the death of Navy Ensign Philip Andrew Pestao, notwithstanding the findings and recommendations of the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights and on National Defense and Security, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. RESPONSE: To begin with, the records will show that the respondent Ombudsman took no part in issuing the Resolution, dated 15 June 2009, which dismissed the case filed by Philips parents, Spouses Felipe and Evelyn Pestao, against certain navy and police officers. . . . [It] was signed by Christian V. Yap [Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I], Eulogio S. Cecilio, [OIC Director], Emilio A. Gonzales III [Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices] and Orlando C. Casimiro [Over-all Deputy Ombudsman]. Further, the response points out: Spouses Pestaos cannot howl delay for they themselves contributed in the delay by filing a total of 19 motions/requests for extensions of time from 21 September 2007 to 5 February 2009 to file their position paperthis for reasons of unanticipated heavy load of paper work and court appearances in other cases . . . Indeed, by the sheer number of motions for extension of time to file position paper filed by the complainants themselves, coupled with the difficulty to obtain evidence due to the lapse of time [Note: The case was first filed with the OMB in 1998 and dismissed in 2000 by then Ombudsman Aniano

Disierto], it is grossly unfair and highly iniquitous to attribute any delay in the resolution of the case to respondent Ombudsman . . . CHARGE: On her allegedly poor conviction record, Upon assumption by Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez as head of the Office of the Ombudsman in December 2005, the conviction record for Ombudsman-conducted prosecutions has declined, highlighted by her performance in 2008 up to the filing of the impeachment complaints, and even includes a high number of plea bargaining agreements entered into by the Office of the Ombudsman. RESPONSE: This claim is based on a purported 2009 report by the Transparency and Accountability Network which asserts that the conviction rate for Ombudsman-conducted prosecutions from January to June 2008 went down from 55% for the previous year to a measly 14.43 %, or nearly a quarter of the rate for 2007. . . . .The allegations of [former congress-woman Riza] Baraquel, et. al. are false, the conviction rate of cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandi-ganbayan and the regular courts for the year 2008 is 73.42%, higher than the previous years of 2006 and 2007. Finally, the respondent Ombudsman herself does not prosecute the criminal cases filed before the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts. The Office of the Special Prosecutor [OSP] is primarily tasked to prosecute the criminal cases filed before the Courts. The respondent Ombudsman has no hand in directing as to how the OSP will try its cases before the Courts. Thus, absent any allegation that the respondent Ombudsman has personally participated in the prosecution of the cases filed before the Courts, there is no basis to link the alleged low conviction rate with betrayal of public trust which would warrant respondent Ombudsmans impeachment. A final word before leaving the reader to ponder these charges and responses. Recall the Constitutions clear intent to protect impeachable officials from removal by sheer political clout even without factual and legal bases. In view of this, how much time do you think the House Committee on Justice should have given to a full and careful consideration of the foregoing arguments and the voluminous evidence submitted before voting on the case against the Ombudsman? A week? A day? An hour? And should the Committee have waited for the Ombudsman to respond within the usual 10-day period? In fact, the Committee took 10 minutes each to decide that the two impeachment complaints, filed by the leftist Akbayan and Bayan Muna party-list groups, were sufficient in form, in substance, and as grounds for impeachment. And less than a day after receiving the foot-high pile of evidence from the complainants, without providing copies to all its members or waiting for the Ombudmans responses, the Committee voted overwhelmingly to endorse the impeachment resolution. It is now up to the House Plenary and perhaps the Senate to weigh in on the impeachment proceedings and ensure that they comply with the lofty parameters of our constitutional democracy and our system of checks and balances, as envisioned in the fundamental law ratified by the Filipino people.

How Congress acts shall show whether it is political clout or the rule of law that holds sway in this country. And what Tuwid na Daan really means. Ricardo Saludo heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence (ric.saludo@censeisolutions.com). He was Secretary of the Cabinet in 2002-08 and Chairman of the Civil Service Commission in 2008-09.

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=661065&publicationSubCategoryId=64