Raps vs Ombudsman found sufficient in form

(Updated 1:30 p.m.) MANILA, Philippines - Amid debates on rules on quorum, the House committee on Justice on Tuesday unanimously approved the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez as sufficient in form. A roll call vote shortly before noon showed 28 lawmakers voting to pass the 33-page complaint filed last March as sufficient in form. Even after the voting, however, some lawmakers questioned what figure actually constitutes a quorum. Among the points discussed were whether an absolute majority or a simple majority is needed, and if ex-officio members' votes are counted. According to committee chair and Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor Jr., 28 is just enough for the panel to vote on the complaint as it represents the absolute majority, or 50 percent plus one, of the committee's 55 regular members. But Parañaque City Rep. Roilo Golez said the number of ex-officio members present during the hearing should have been counted in the total number that would be used as basis for the quorum. "I believe the Justice committee did not have the required quorum when it voted on sufficiency in form," Golez said. Golez pointed out that there were four ex-officio members who voted, meaning 59 should have been used as the base number for the computation of a quorum. According to him, 50 percent plus one of 59 divided is 30.5, which means the new quorum should have been 31. Golez said his computation is in accordance with Section 36 of the House Rules, which states that "the Speaker, deputy speakers, deputy majority leaders, minority leader, deputy minority leaders, etc...shall be included in the total number of committee members for purposes of determining the existence of a quorum if they are present in meeting." Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and South Cotabato Rep. Darlene Antonino-Custodio vowed to question before the Rules committee the rule Defensor used in the voting. Defensor, however, maintained that the committee only followed the "more recent interpretation" set by Deputy Speaker and Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, who formerly chaired the Justice committee. He said the committee will determine next the complaint's sufficiency in substance, although the schedule for the next hearing is still uncertain depending on the readiness of the complaint's endorsers to present their arguments. Salonga warning Earlier, former Senate President Jovito Salonga warned that those behind the impeachment complaint might go to the Supreme Court if lawmakers abuse their discretion over the matter. In his three-minute message to members of the House committee on Justice, the lead complainant in the complaint against Gutierrez cited Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution which states that the judiciary has the power to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. "You happen to be, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, an instrumentality of this government. I hope and pray that it will not be necessary for us to invoke this power of the judicial department," Salonga said. Salonga left shortly after he delivered his message. He confirmed with reporters that his message was a warning to lawmakers that the issue would be taken to the courts if the complainants find such a move necessary, as in when there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of lawmakers. The 33-page complaint filed by Salonga and 30 other civil society leaders last March charged Gutierrez with betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the 1987 Constitution in the handling of several controversies. These include the Mega Pacific and corruption case against former Elections chair Benjamin Abalos Sr., the World Bank mess regarding the sanctioning of three Filipino construction firms over alleged collusion, and the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, among others. Gutierrez has repeatedly denied the allegations. - GMANews.TV