Through a 7-5-2 voting, the Supreme Court ruled on 15 February 2011 that the House of Representatives Justice Committee may proceed with its hearings on the impeachment complaints against Ombudsman Chief Merceditas Gutierrez. It denied the petition of Gutierrez to stop the proceedings on the ground that the law allows only one impeachment complaint against the Ombudsman for a span of one year.
Consequently the High Court lifted the status quo ante it issued on the committee in deference to the Gutierrez argument last year.
On 22 July 2010, then Party-list Representative Riza Hontiveros-Baraquel of Akbayan. Freed military officer Danilo Lim and the parents of the late Navy Ensign Philip Pestano also filed their respective complaints for impeachment co-signed the Hontiveros-Baraquel complaint. They accused Guttierez of betraying the public trust and violating the Constituteion for the "dismal and unconscionably low" performance of her office in convicting public officials.
Secretary-general Renato Reyes of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) filed a second and separate impeachment complaints against Gutierrez on 3 August 2010 for her alleged failure to prosecute those behind the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
In the decision that Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales penned, the High Court ruled that: "The committee on justice acted on the two complaints, ruling on the sufficiency of form, and later of substance, at the same time... There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the consolidation of the first and second complaints since they were refererred... to the committee... at the same time." The committee received the referral on 11 August 2010.
Secretary-general Renato Reyes of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) filed a second and separate impeachment complaints against Gutierrez on 3 August 2010 for her alleged failure to prosecute those behind the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
In the decision that Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales penned, the High Court ruled that: "The committee on justice acted on the two complaints, ruling on the sufficiency of form, and later of substance, at the same time... There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the consolidation of the first and second complaints since they were refererred... to the committee... at the same time." The committee received the referral on 11 August 2010.
THE VOTES
Decision DISMISSED
Concurred [7] AJ Antonio Carpio, AJ Conchita Carpio-Morales, AJ Maria Lourdes Sereno, AJ Roberto Abad, AJ Jose Mendoza, AJ Eduardo Nachura, and AJ Martin Villarama Jr.
Dissent [5] CJ Renato Corona, AJ Arturo Brion, AJ Lucas Bersamin, AJTeresita Leonardo-De Castro, and AJ Diosdado Peralta
Equivocal [2] AJ Mariano del Castillo (partial dissent), and AJ Jose Perez (partial dissent)
Inhibited [1] AJ Presbitero Velasco (did not join the deliberations)
GRANTING OF MOTION WITHOUT DELIBERATION
GRANTING OF MOTION WITHOUT DELIBERATION
In her separate opinion supporting the ruling that allowed the House justice committee to resume with the impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez, Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno disclosed that the order granting the motion of Gutierrez for certiorari on 13 September 2010 "was voted upon in the morning of Sept. 14, 2010, without the benefit of a genuinely informed debate." She said that "several members of the court" had not seen the copy of the Gutierrez petition when the tribunal acted favorably on it during their regular full court session that day.
Carpio shared Sereno's observation, nothing that he, Sereno and Morales had requested more time to study the pleading. Gutierrez filed her petition at 9:01 a.m. on Sept. 13 but he saw a copy of the document only on the afternoon of the next day "after the en banc morning session of that day." And the petition consists of 60 pages, excluding the annexes.
The Court did not issue a resolution explaining its Sept. 14, 2010 ruling. What happened, SC spokesperson Midas Marquez simply held a news briefing to announce that Gutierrez had won a reprieve from the Court.
The attempt of the Supreme Court to shield Gutierrez was not the more obvious.
SUFFICIENT IN GROUNDS
In a vote of 41-12, the House Committee on Justice approved on 1 March 2011 the motion of the Deputy Speaker and Quezon Representative Lorenzo "Erin" Tañada III, declaring the first impeachment complaint that Hotiveros-Baraquel, Lim, and the Pestanos "sufficient in grounds."
House panel vice chairperson and Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Farinas motioned for the second impeachment complaint from Reyes, which the committee members voted 42-12 declairing the complaint again sufficient in grounds.
VIEWS
Senator Francis Pangilinan: "We believe that impeachment is a matter that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress, and that the Supreme Court should never have intervened in the first place... That the SC realized its mistake is a welcome development. There was this growing perception that the Supreme Court was taking the cudgels for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo whose administration has cases that have been gathering dust in the Ombudsman."
Associate Supreme Court Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno: "The issuance of the status quo ante order in this case was most unfortunate... I believed then, as I believe now, that the court... was overly intrusive with respect to a power that does not belong to it by restrainingh without hearing a coequal branch of government."
Sources
Marlong Ramos: "SC didn't debate Gutierrez's petition--Sereno," Philippine Daily Inquirer 28 February 2011
Virgil Lopez, Katrina Alvarez, Jonathan de Santos, Jill Beltran: "Ombudsman studies options on High Court decision," SunStar Network Exchange 15 February 2011
Virgil Lopez, Katrina Alvarez, Jonathan de Santos, Jill Beltran: "Ombudsman studies options on High Court decision," SunStar Network Exchange 15 February 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment