http://filipinovoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/impeachment-complaint_as-filed.pdf
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is supposed to be chasing grafters in government but now civil society leaders are seeking the lady graft buster’s removal for betraying public trust.
Gutierrez is supposed to head the constitutional office until 2012 but former senate president Jovito Salonga says Filipinos have had enough of Gutierrez’s perceived inaction or footdraggingon the string of sensational graft scandals that have dramatically eroded faith in the government of the day.
The question now is whether the administration-dominated Congress will give serious consideration to the 33-page complaint’s merits or just take Gutierrez’s blanket denials hook-line-and-sinker.
There are ‘assurances that the House of Representatives may yet have time before going on its Lenten break to look into the impeachment case and determine its sufficiency in form, and then in substance.
But many are being turned off by the see mingly combative stance Ombudsman Gutierrez has taken with the latest being her declaration that she won’t quit nor take a leave of absence.
Political observers I’ve spoken to said Gutierrez appears to be signaling GMA loyalists in Congress to think twice about crossing her.
Will the winds of change move our lawmakers, or will dogged loyalty to Malacanang rule the day yet again?
Update:
News reports are now quoting First Gentleman Mike Arroyo as saying on his friend’s behalf:
“We were not even in the same class. We were year mates but we were not kaklase (classmates). She’s just doing her job, just let her alone, leave her alone.” (Emphasis mine.)
Here it becomes abundantly clkear what the marching orders are to the House of Representatives.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Justice Gutierrez has no good reasons to sit and
delay on the high profile cases. Material evidences
on those cases are overwhelming.
She should be ashamed of herself. But, her elephantine skin is now desensitized by her own
arrogance. Who does she think she is ?
She is just a government employee doing insubordination. Let us fire her!
another futile political exercise. the way “impeachment” is being used, it will soon become a sick joke that is not very funny. i feel sorry for the durable jovito salonga (author of international
law treatises that helped me immensely as a law student), lending his name to yet another fight with the proverbial windmill. no need to tarnish his image on his way to being hailed a “great filipino” by coming generations.
true impeachment, to be viable, has to be grounded on at least one of these: treason, bribery or other high crimes, breach of trust, or CULPABLE violation of the law and the constitution.
i don’t see any of these present against the ombudslady. all her actions that are alleged are within her prerogative and discretion. political unpopularity does not translate to guilt of an impeachable offense. i think the “complaint” borders on the frivolous.
oh, really bencard? would you trust a security guard sleeping on his job, while crooks ransack your coffer?
ah, but then again these are minions of your president, so in this case, a cheapening of impeachment processes. but who started the desecration of the process? you will not remember because to you, it was legitimate then.
this one, i say let it prosper. proverbial windmill or not, don quixote shall sing: this is my quest, no matter how hopeless, no matter how far,…, to be willing to fight so that honor and justice may live.
Mr. Speaker, do you always travel by train?
inidoro ni emilie,
There are those who have become so far detached from the pulse of our people that and are only too willing to ignore the patent mis-governance that has been visited upon Philippine society these past 8 years.
Sadly for Mrs. Gutierrez and her patrons, they would rather be blind to corruption, nay, be actual players in it at dare the ides of march.
Let them reap the whirlwind.
Sen. Salonga may seem Quixotic right now, and Riza, the widow, an unlikely Dulcinea, but they fight on the side of the people.
Always, as President Barack Obama timely said, there will always be those who “find themselves in the wrong side of history”.
The orgy never ends but it will.
Merceditas G. should have never been an Ombudsman in the first place. Haaay naku.
Madonna,
This episode highlights the situation created when sensitive public posts are given to people who are patriotism-challenged and think part of their job is to reciprocate their utang-na-loob to the appointing power.
In Gutierrez’s case she is missing the boat, the chance to make a difference, how ever small, in fighting the blight of corruption in public service.
Your exasperation resonates among many.
“Merceditas G. should have never been an Ombudsman in the first place”
pwede din sabihin…our current leaders should have never been our leaders….
hindi lang si MG na classmate na FG ang dapat tanggalin…dapat tanggalin lahat silang nakaupo (pero please lang, wag palitan ng mga lumang actor..sa basura na lang tayo magrecycle, wag sa mga politiko at opisyal ng gobyerno).
hayyy naku talaga madonna hehehehe
well…ang mga politico at opisyal ng gobyerno natin ay maihalintulad din naman sa mga basura..yun nga lang ang mga basurang normal hindi nagnanakaw…itong mga basurang politiko at opisyal na gobyerno ay nagnanakaw pa…bwahahahaha
Bencard,
Could you give us please some concrete examples of what you would consider impeachable CULPABLE VIOLATIONS of the Constitution that might uniquely be ascribed to the Ombudsman? Would obvious derelictions of duty qualify as such? Your old mentor, Jovito Salonga seems to think so.
I am looking specifically at Article XI Sections (5) to (14) which all apply specifically to the Ombudsman’s Constitutional duties. How could Merceditas Gutierreza be culpably in violation of any of these that would meet your criteria for such violation?–
speaking purely hypothetically and speculatively in this forum of course!
Bencard,
Take for example Section 12 below. How, concretely, could an Ombudsman violate culpably this section amounting to an impeachable offense?
djb, obviously, proof is needed to show she did not act “promptly” whether or not by confidential investigation in which the public and the hostile media were not privy. then, proof is needed to show whether or not the case is “appropriate” for purposes of notifying the complainant, of course after defining what are the parameters of the term “appropriate” and who is the authority to determine those parameters. i contend that it is the ombudsman who decides, in the first instance, what is appropriate. any “mistake”, if at all, in that determination is not necessarily “culpable violation of the constitution.
Bencard,
Suppose that the Ombudsman has been directed by the Supreme Court or the Philippine Senate to undertake the investigation and prosecution of a given public official. Suppose she merely fails to “notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof” would that be a “culpable violation of the Constitution” sufficient for impeachment? (not of course conviction which requires evidence and trial, not just probable cause).
As for things within her discretion, what are your recommended parameters regarding culpability resulting from the abuse of that discretion ?
Bencard,
The “proof that she did not act promptly” is to be submitted when and where? Surely not at the House impeachment proceedings which will only lead to an initiation of the case of impeachment and trial at the Senate. When proof is accepted and presented that she did not act promptly, that would be evidence of an impeachable offense, which the House Rules do not allow the presentation of.
How then do you think “probable cause” for impeachment and trial must be established?
¨proof¨ — the favorite word of the corrupt and incompetent politicians and Govt officials in our country…
¨may proof ba kayo?¨ is the favorite line of the guilty
hehehehehe
which is rather preferred: a cycle of edsa revolutions or impeachment processes that reflect the more mature viable option for getting rid of politically inept officials who have no business serving the people as they snore on their jobs. come to think of it, 365 days of daily impeachment complaints may not be enough. but at least, we’re now getting civil on the whole thing. joke? hell, no. enough of us getting the end of the line. now that’s the sick joke played on us.
djb, i know after your initial question, you’d have 1001 more following it. i would really have to seriously consider “billing” you for the service (lol).
i don’t believe that the sc could “direct” executive officers, exercising discretionary powers, to do or act one way or the other. in cases where it can, i.e. in regard to “ministerial functions”, it can only be done via a specific justiciable case brought before it, e.g., mandamus, prohibition, etc. as to the legislature, obviously it cannot order executive officers around in view of the separation of powers doctrine and inter-departmental courtesy.
@ 9:29pm, the house impeachment body acts as the prosecutor responsible for determining whether a particular charge is viable enough, factually and legally, to warrant its transmission to the senate for trial. the determination of whether or not a complaint is “sufficient in form and substance” necessitates strong showing of factual probability and convincing legality. in any event, the house is the sole judge as to whether or not an impeachment complaint meets its test of formal and substantive “sufficiency”.
juan_d @ 9:45pm, as long as we are a democracy, proof is needed by all of us whenever we accuse someone or defend ourselves. would you rather be thrown into jail outright without “proof” of wrongdoing? would you like to be deemed guilty just for demanding proof from your accuser?
Bencard,
You have gained the greater benefit from this exchange, I assure you.
Bencard,
Really? And what are SCORP decisions, say against abuse of discretion, chicken liver?
Bencard…spare me the sermon. You want proof? just look around, and you will see how the politicians and govt officials did their job for this country and for this people…
However, if you are one of them or working for anyone of them…no doubt you wont see the proof. You surely sound like one of them. How much are you getting from these people anyway? you enjoying the power? the money they are paying you?
What do you tell your children about our country’s situation? Do you tell them about how good our politicans are and govt officials are? That they are doing a very good job in leading this country? THat they are protecting the intereset of the filipino people?
why am I wasting my time talking to you..people like you are impossible to talk to…you or your boss is fucking the hell out of the filipino people and the country.
are you gonna ask me to show proof about what I said? hehehehehe
Juwan_D,
Tito Ben is over in the East Coat. :) Far from our local pollution.
Item:
“President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to conduct a review of how contracts are awarded throughout the government, saying more competition is needed to bring down the cost of military spending and on other federal projects.
“The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” Mr. Obama said. “We need more competition for contracts and more oversight as they are carried out.”
With Senator John McCain and a half-dozen other lawmakers by his side, Mr. Obama announced that he had signed a presidential memorandum to direct the administration to follow new guidelines in awarding government contracts. He said the changes could save up to $40 billion a year.”
Over there, Obama, wants to make sure tongpats will not bukol. :)
juan_d, answer my questions first, then maybe, just maybe, i’ll answer yours. if you don’t want to be talked to don’t post stupid juvenile comments.
djb, elementary. “abuse” is not the same as “use”.
abuse of discretion is not an exercise of discretion. it is an unlawful exercise of a prerogative and therefore, voidable, at least, and may or may not be “impeachable”.
Bencard,
Ok, let’s get beyond the prelims. I ask only that you take the provisions on the Ombudsman and give us a clear example of what to you would constitute a culpable violation of such provision.
I don’t mean something general like the Ombudsman commits murder in front of the television cameras. I want to understand what would constitute for you an impeachable offense by the Ombudsman specific to the provisions on his or her duties and responsibilities as Ombudsman. So we can look at her record and see if Jovito Salonga taught you well or not.
djb, firstly, salonga did not teach me. i said i used his book on international law while a student. stop “re-engineering” what people say.
the way things are, it appears that what is “impeachable offense” by the ombudsman, specifically in the discharge of his/her office, is what the house say it is. why? because the process is political, not judicial.
bencard,
an interesting dodge: it’s up to the House. Fair enough. But a small correction: it is not really up to House in the normal sense that the House acts on the Majority. In this case it is only the one third minority that is required to act, not the House. On that basis alone, this interpretation of yours sounds contrary to the nature of constitutional democracy.
The Constitution is a Contract. In this issue, the House is only one of the parties to that contract, and cannot be left to interpret its terms completely on its own!
Yes it is a political process in which the political department has the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE judicial power to initiate and try to finality, a case of impeachment.
Here is Separation of Powers as clear as a geological formation. The Legislature exercising a supreme judicial power over impeachable officials. Not even SCORP will be able to review or reverse the decision of Congress in this case.
djb, too bad you don’t understand that, for purposes of determining sufficiency of an impeachment complaint, the required vote (1/3 of membership) constitutes the entire lower house.
I ask you to interpret the Contract and you say it is up to one of the parties alone to decide. The text of the Agreement is there. You cannot, or will not say or describe how it might be violated by the Ombudsman and quibble with me about fractions and arithmetic.
But why is it so hard to address the question head-on? What would, to you, constitute culpable “delay” or “lack of promptness” on the part of the Ombudsman to comply with “polite requests” from the Supreme Court Decisions and Senate Committee Reports?
Would maybe, just maybe, a delay of four years with nuthin hapnin or bein done by her qualify as “delay”?
btw, the house is NOT a party to the social contract. the entire government, of which the house is a component part, is the party, together with the PEOPLE, i.e., at least the majority who voted to adopt the constitution at a plebiscite
Yes that is true for the Constitution as a whole. But I like to think of it as Multiparty contract in the details. Remember the Master Contract deals with all conceivable situations involving the government and parts of it with the People and the persons, natural and juridical that make up the People.
So in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) it is really contract between the thirty one impeachable Constitutional Officers and the People. The sections I quoted are the terms of the Contract between the Ombudsman and the People.
Earlier in the Article we have the portions that refer to the House impeachment initiation and Senate trial provisions.
It is really Article XI Ombudsman contract provisions I am asking you to assist us, here at FV, to benefit from your knowledge and opinion about what the fair way to proceed is for us, who are in fact, a Party to those contract provisions!
djb @11:00am, of course i cannot say whatever you want me to say, or not to say, because i cannot second-guess the house who i keep telling you is the SOLE determinant and judge of the matter, period.
Here is the contract provision that says what the Ombudsman agrees to do, which I am asking you to interpret for us, the Party of the Second Part:
Both Supreme Court in unanimous decisions and Senate in unimous Committee reports have formally and repeatedly transmitted such complaints to the Ombudsman since December 1, 2005. With no action or response from Merci, sayeth them.
If you won’t say it Bencard, then I will, because I can read English Grammar and Composition, even when written by Jesuit lawyers.
djb @ 11:13am, but the complainants do not constitute the PEOPLE. neither do they represent the majority of the people, let alone the entire population. ergo, they cannot be a party to the contract that you are talking about.
All in good time Bencard. All in good time. If and when the Case is sent to the Senate for trial, it will indeed be called People versus Ombudsman. The claim that the House is the sole determinant of what the Contract means contradicts certain other similar sounding but different aphorisms you have invoked in the past.
I sense however, that philosophically you may be a contractarian, which is why I have been soliciting your opinion along those lines.
I find most Filipinos to be Biblical or even apocalyptic in their approach to reading the Constitution, and therefore prone to the idea that “only SCORP” can say what the Constitution means.” or “Only the House can decide what is a culpably impeachable offense by the Ombudsman”
To me the TEXT of what we all ratified and signed is there and has got to mean something transcendentally, as it were, in and of itself: in the SOUND and SENSE of the simple words of the Contract.
That is why I think you are merely dodging my question with: “It’s up to the House to tell you what the contract means, Dean.”
djb, it was the same constitution, which you love to interpret on your own, that empowered the house to be the final judge of the formal and legal sufficiency of an impeachment complaint.
unfortunately, your own personal interpretation doesn’t count for anything.