SC junks Merci's appeal vs House impeach bid

(Updated 3:30 p.m.) The Supreme Court has denied Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s motion for reconsideration in connection with the two impeachment complaints filed against her at the House of Representatives, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said Tuesday. “The motion for reconsideration has been denied. That means the House [justice panel] can now proceed with its proceedings against Ombudsman Gutierrez," said Marquez at a news briefing. Gutierrez is accused of shielding former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and other officials in the Arroyo government from prosecution. She is a batch-mate of Arroyo’s husband, Jose Miguel, at the Ateneo Law School. The high court’s resolution was unavailable as of posting time. As this developed, the House justice committee on Tuesday voted to approve the impeachment complaints for plenary vote after lawmakers found probable cause to remove her from her post for alleged betrayal of public trust. Same voting pattern The voting remained the same: seven justices maintained that the House justice panel can continue with its hearings, five ruled in favor of Gutierrez, two partially concurred with the majority, while one inhibited himself from the court deliberations. The majority is composed of Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Roberto Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, Eduardo Nachura, and Martin Villarama Jr. 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. Those who partially concurred with the majority were Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Jose Perez, while Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. inhibited himself because his son, Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco, belongs to the House justice committee. Gutierrez has earlier criticized the House panel for proceeding with its hearings because the SC has yet to finalize its ruling denying her plea. But with the court's decision on Tuesday, there is no longer a legal obstacle on the justice committee's bid to unseat Gutierrez. Grounds for denial of appeal At the news briefing, Marquez said the high court’s majority maintained that the 1987 Constitution and Gutierrez’s right to due process were not violated when the House panel ruled that the two complaints were sufficient in form and substance. Gutierrez had argued that the filing of two complaints is violative of the Constitution, which she claimed only allows the filing of one impeachment complaint against an official per year. She cited Section 3(5), Article XI of the 1987 Charter, which provides that: “No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." Gutierrez said the filing of the first complaint already set in motion one impeachment proceeding. But last Feb. 15, the SC brushed aside her arguments and said that the filing of an impeachment complaint does not yet initiate one impeachment proceeding. The SC likewise said that to limit the impeachment proceedings to the filing of one impeachment complaint per year “renders the impeachment mechanism both illusive and illusory" and “puts a premium on senseless haste" because whoever gets to file the first impeachment complaint will get the House of Representatives’ attention. “A prospective complainant, regardless of ill motives or best intentions, can wittingly or unwittingly desecrate the entire process by the expediency of submitting a haphazard complaint out of sheer hope to be the first in line. It also puts to naught the effort of other prospective complainants who, after diligently gathering evidence first to buttress the case, would be barred days or even hours later from filing an impeachment complaint," the SC said. - KBK, GMA News