The Gutierrez Impeachment Trial

Statements

Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, president, Senate: "As a citizen of this republic, I am really not happy with the performance of the Ombudsman and her people... (So) I understood where the President is coming from when he issued those statements because he was getting frustrated and wants to do something."


Impact

The positive impacts of the impeachment trial include:
1. Evidences will be put in the court of law on whether there is basis for the accusations made upon Guttierez.
2. The Filipino people can move on in cleaning up the government of corrupt employees.
3. Evidences on the unsettled legal issues involving the Arroyo administration will be evaluated for their merits in the impeachment court.

There only two important outcome that can weigh on the country because of the trial:
1. The cost of the trial will be very high.
2. A long stretched out trial can derail the other works of the Senate and can be troubling for the people to follow.

UPDATE: Merci Resigned

In a letter dated 29 April 2011, Merceditas Guttierez tendered her resignation to PNoy, effective May 6. On the same day, the President accepted it.

Impacts

One central outcome of the Gutierrez resignation is the automatic discontinuation of the impeachment trial.

Positive Impact to Gutierrez
1. She will save herself the trouble of defending herself from the court.
2. She removed the risk of probably losing the case, including her retirement benefits and right to serve again in the government.

Positive Impact to those Involved in the Scams Mentioned
1. The case will not be scrutinized and deliberated anymore in the impeachment court, keeping the status quo. (If protectionism had happened, those being protected remained so at least for the meantime.)

Positive Impact to the Government
1. It saves millions of pesos of expenditures for the impeachment trial.
2. It allows Senators to more on to other national concerns.
3. It removes in the Office of the Ombudsman the obstacle to cleaning up the government ranks.
4. The Filipino people can finally move on from this issue.

Negative Impact
The sole negative outcome this event brought was the opportunity loss at not having the controversies hounding the Arroyo administration scrutinized in the court of law. 

(Photo courtesy of Philippines Graphic)

Sources

Marvin Sy: "'Noy statements won't affect Senate judgment on Merci," The Philippine Star 25 March 2011
Kimberly Jane Tan: "Ombudsman Merci resigns, 10 days before Senate trial," GMA News 29 April 2011

House Voted Overwhelmingly to Impeach Guitierrez

The House of Representatives voted on 21 March 2011 (Monday) to impeach current Ombudsman chief Merceditas Gutierrez. And they did it overwhelmingly so.

Innuendos

Pork SMS. The plenary debates on House Resolution 1089 started at 5 PM. Representative Edcel Lagman (Lakas Kampi CMD-Albay) sought to stop the voting and asked the chamber to investigate text messages that circulated among lawmakers over the weekend that allegedly threatening them of being deprived of pork barrel funds if they do not vote in favor of the impeachment. Malacañang issued an official statement that it is not the policy of the administration to use the pork barrel to force congressmen to vote for the impeachment.

Senior Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II (Mandaluyong) said that the text message came from Representative Emilio Abaya (Cavite), who in turn strongly denied it as a mere disinformation. Speaker Feliciano Belmonte also received the text message. The text message read: "Fr, Cong. Abaya-Favor kindly disseminate to all reps - LP and non-LPs. Thisshud b made clear to all. Those who will vote no or absent/abstain on empeachment will get 0 as in zero. At least walang sisihan that there was no forewarning..." Belmonte had initiated an investigation to identify the true sender.

To prevent Gutierrez supporters from delaying the proceedings, Gonzales motioned to start the consideration of the committee report, and Deputy Speaker Arnulfo Puentevella ordered so at past 6 PM.

INC. House members who received the calls confirmed that a high-ranking official of influential Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) called them asking to kill the impeachment of Gutierrez. Rodante Marcoleta (Alagad partylist), the only INC member in the House clarified that "it is never its policy to dictate on the House members. If indeed the calls were made, it was to urge the lawmakers and appeal to them to vote based on evidence, conviction and conscience."  

The Vote

To have the Articles of Impeachment, including the Committee Report 778 of the House Committee on Justice, sent to the Senate for trial, the House needs 95 votes.

In Favor [YES]. 212 votes (80.9%)

Not In Favor [NO]. 46 (17.6%) | These congressmen include Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Lakas Kampi CMD-Pampanga), Rolando Andaya Jr. (Lakas Kampi CMD-Camarines Sur), Tobias Reynald Tiangco (PMP-Navotas), Orlando Fua, Sr. (Lakas Kampi CMF-Siquijor), Deputy Speaker Jesus Crispin Remulla (NP-Cavite), Edcel Lagman (Lakas Kampi CMD-Albay), and Pablo Garcia (Cebu).

Abstained. 4 Representatives (1.5%) | Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (LP-Quezon City), Lani Mercado-Revilla (Lakas Kampi CMD-Cavite), Mark Villar (NP-Las Piñas) | Both Revilla and Villar appeared to abstain because both have family members as current senators who will be acting as Judge-Senators once the impeachment case begins trial in the Senate.

No Vote. The 22 representatives who did not register their vote included Imelda Marcos (KBL-Ilocos Norte) and Manny Pacquiao (LP-Saranggani).

The National Peoples' Coalition (NPC), Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Liberal Party (LP) voted as a bloc. NPC and LP voted YES, while NP voted NO.


Sources
RG Cruz: "INC trying to stop Gutierrez impeachment?" ABS-CBN News 20 March 2011
Jocyce Pañares: "Palace delinks pork from impeachment," Manila Standard TOday 21 March 2011
Christine Herrera: "Iglesia rejects party voting on move to oust Gutierrez," Manila Standard Today 21 March 2011

House Justice Committee Voted Probable Cause on Merci Impeachment

The Justice Committee of the House of Representatives voted on 8 March 2011 (Tuesday) in favor of finding probable cause to impeach Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Thirty-nine members voted in favor, nine voted against, and one abstained.

The voting came after the Supreme Court issued a ruling today junking Merci's appeal to stop the House from proceeding with her impeachment. House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. texted Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas to report the ruling while the voting was ongoing.

SC Voting

Five justices voted to let the House panel continute with its hearings. Five ruled in favor of Gutierrez. Two partially concurred with the majority. And one inhibited from the court deliberations.

Not in favor. Those who maintained that the House be allowed to continue the impeachment hearings are Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justice Roberto Abad, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, Associate Justice Eduardo Nachura, and Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr.

In favor. Those favored the Gutierrez petition are Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justice Arturo Brion, Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro, and Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta.

Partially Not in favor. Those who partiallo supported the position of the majority are Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo and Associate Justice Jose Perez.

Inhibited. Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. did not attend the deliberation as his son, Marinduque Representative Lord Allan Velasco, belongs to the House justice committee.

UPDATE

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee headed by Senator Teofisto Guingona III recommended in its 65-page report that Gutierrez "be held accountable for non-feasance." It also recommended to the House of Representative "to submit to the Senate the articles of impeachment against Gutierrez the soonest time possible," The Philippine Star reported on 10 March 2011. 

(Photo courtesy of Newsbreak)

Sources

Christina Mendez: "Senate committee wants special prosecutor fired," The Philippine Star 10 March 2011
Sophia Dedace: "SC junks Merci's appeal vs. House impeach bid," GMA News 8 March 2011

House to Proceed with Gutierrez Impeachment Hearings

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.

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

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