The impeachment complaints filed against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez have passed the first hurdle after the House committee on justice on Wednesday found them sufficient in form. The panel, headed by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas III, discussed the complaints filed by former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros and progressive groups led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) separately. Gutierrez was accused of incompetence and for sitting on cases involving former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others. Gutierrez had earlier rejected calls for her to resign. Thirty-nine committee members voted for the sufficiency in form of the Hontiveros complaint while only one voted against it. On the other hand, 31 members voted for sufficiency in form of the progressive groups’ complaint while nine voted against it. The committee will decide if it will consolidate the complaints only after the determination of the sufficiency in substance. “We have now two complaints, the consolidation depends on the committee and may come today or later on after the determination of sufficiency in form," Tupas said. Tupas should inhibit During Wednesday's hearing, Davao del Sur Rep. Marc Douglas Cagas asked Tupas to inhibit due to the pending case of his father, former Iloilo governor Niel Tupas Jr., before the Ombudsman. "This committee should be impartial in its investigation of the respondent. We should be unbiased because this is a very critical issue," he said. Iloilo Rep. Ferjenel Biron agreed with Cagas, saying it is only proper for Tupas to inhibit because of his father’s case. "I’m not accusing the chairman of any guilt, but for the sake of propriety, for the preservation of the integrity of the House and its proceedings, it is my fervent request that the chairman should inhibit himself from presiding this particular case," he said. He added that Tupas, in the 14th Congress, voted for the impeachment of Gutierrez. Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tanada III came to Tupas’ defense, saying if Biron’s logic would be followed, most the members of the committee should inhibit because most of them voted for or against the first impeachment complaint. Marikina Rep. Romero Federico Quimbo, committee vice chairman, also defended Tupas. “If we allow that as a ground to inhibit what would prevent the Ombudsman from filing subsequent cases against all of the members here who are perceived to be against the Ombudsman?" he said. “Inhibition is a majestic duty on the part of the committee. When we inhibit ourselves we abdicate our duty, responsibility to this political process. If the ground is simply because there is pending case before the Ombudsman at whatever stage it is not sufficient," he added.
With utmost impartiality Tupas said he would not abdicate his duties especially his constitutional mandate to hear the impeachment proceedings. “The chairman will proceed with utmost impartiality," he vowed. “The decision to inhibit oneself to the proceedings is left primary to the sound discretion of the members of the House committee on justice based on rationale and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing. The House committee on justice has no jurisdiction to disqualify a member of the committee, so the chairman will continue to preside with the hearings," he said. In the seven-page impeachment complaint filed by Hontiveros, resigned military general Danilo Lim, and the parents of Andrew Pestaño, a deceased Philippine Navy Ensign, Gutierrez was accused of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the 1987 Constitution. She allegedly failed to be the “protector of the people" and instead became the “gatekeeper of the corrupt." Among the grounds of the complaint was the dismal conviction rate of the Office of the Ombudsman since 2008, which they said indicates a “criminal" level of incompetence amounting to grave dereliction of duty. The complaint also alleged that Gutierrez: - failed to act promptly on cases filed against the Arroyo couple and other public officials involved in the alleged overpricing of the NBN-ZTE deal; - incurred inexcusable delay in the investigation on the death of ensign Philip Pestaño, a case which the United Nations itself rapped the Ombudsman for failure to probe the case; - issued a decision to uphold the legality of the arrest and involuntary detention of Hontiveros by the Philippine National Police in 2005; - failed to investigate the P1-million dinner for the presidential party at the Le Cirque restaurant in New York; - repeatedly failed to take prompt action on various cases involving Mrs. Arroyo such as the Mega-Pacific scam, among others; - refused to grant ready access to public records such as the Statement of Assets, Net Worth and Liabilities of former Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo. In the 30-page complaint filed by Renato Reyes of Bayan; Sister Mary John Mananzan of PAGBABAGO; Danilo Ramos of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas; lawyer Edre Olalia of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL); Ferdinand Gaite of COURAGE; and James Terry Ridon of the League of Filipino Students, Gutierrez was accused of failing to act on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam. The said money intended for poor farmers was allegedly used in the 2004 elections by Mrs. Arroyo, who was then running for president. They said Gutierrez should also be held liable for her refusal to prosecute former police Director Eliseo de la Paz for his illegal act of not declaring before Customs officials the more than $10,000.00 he brought out of the country despite his public admission under oath that he committed the illegal act. The complainants said Gutierrez also failed to take action on the poll automation contract awarded to the Mega Pacific Consortium that was declared anomalous and void by the Supreme Court in 2004. Based on Article X of the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman may be removed from office through impeachment on the grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
Impeachment process The impeachment proceedings start at the House of Representatives where a complaint maybe filed by any House member or any private citizen and endorsed by any House member. The complaint will then be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days and referred to the House committee on justice within three session days. The committee will then hear the complaint and determine its sufficiency in form and substance and submit its report and resolution, approved by majority of its members, within 60 session days. The report and resolution shall be calendared for consideration of the House as a whole within 10 session days. A vote of at least one-third of all the members of the House is needed to either affirm or junk the findings of the committee. Once affirmed, the complaint will be filed and will constitute the Articles of Impeachment and will be sent to the Senate for trial proper. The Senate has to sole power to try and decide the impeachment case. If the case against the Ombudsman will prosper, the Senate President will preside over the proceedings. However, if the President is the one on trial, it is the Supreme Court Chief Justice who will preside. The concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate is needed to convict the accused. Judgment in impeachment cases should not be more than removal from office and disqualification to any government post but the convicted party can still be held liable and subjected to criminal prosecution, trial and punishment. Only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against the same official within a period of one year.
— KBK/RSJ, GMANews.TV 
GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
