Tag: Ombudsman
the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez….being heard right now at 10:29 a.m. in the House Committee on Justice. Her legal counsel has been allowed to “control” the first five or seven minutes of the proceeding by being allowed to speak on her behalf without entering any formal appearance, and by directly engaging the congressmen in legal arguments.
Her counsel should be required to make a formal entry of appearance on her behalf since the Committee hearing, dubbed “clarificatory hearing” is tasked to receive evidence and hear the complaint for the determination of a “prima facie” case and therefore partakes an “evidentiary” character. The respondent cannot have her cake and eat it, too; if her counsel would be allowed to speak on her behalf, counsel should enter appearance, formally, on her behalf — thereby, accepting jurisdiction — the legal issue that she is raising again on M.R. in the Supreme Court.
In addition, if counsel is going to be allowed to make statements of fact on behalf of the respondent, the same should not be allowed since complainants or the prosecution have no opportunity to cross, and they have the right to cross on any testimony or statements of fact or evidence; otherwise, it should not be allowed or should be expunged from the records.
Congressmen still arguing how the respondent would be accommodated by bending their rules, 15 minutes into to the proceeding.
Respondent’s counsel now arguing on rules of procedure for filing an Answer, still without formally entering an appearance, the Chair said he was there in the status of an observer (but being allowed to argue extensively at any time with all congressmen and sundry).
Finally! reception of evidence. but it’s interrupted again by a congressman asking for … a definition of probable cause. Dribble dribble dribble… dribbling the ball…
still discussing definition of probable cause.
Finally! presentation of evidence.
Nag- speech pa! (the congressman presenting the witness is delivering a speech!)
Still “speechifying”. Where’s the witness?! i have classes at 1pm.
ANC says she is presenting evidence — she is not, she’s in the status of an endorser of the Complaint, not a witness; she is delivering a speech —
have classes in a minute. Those who have handled impeachment proceedings and trials know that the “star” or VIP of any case, is the witness — not the lawyers, not the presentors, not the endorsers, but the witnesses. They’re the ones who make the case. Not the congressmen/ senators/ judge or lawyers — but the witnesses, the evidence… congressman still “speechifying”. Where are the witnesses…?!
Those matters she is talking about in her speech, the Ombudsman’s conviction rate, delay in prosecution, etc., are matters of record and should be presented by the custodian of the records or any person who has procured the records officially, with the exhibits being marked already now…. instead of a speech… ANC still says she is presenting evidence. She is not. She is not a witness, she wasn’t even placed under oath, she is giving a speech. Okay, let us just grant that she is delivering the opening statement on behalf of the prosecution– the chair should have announced it as “Opening Statement”; and please, even my youngest and most junior students have visuals and animated graphics even of last-minute presentations in class. ANC still says she is presenting evidence. she is not. this is supposedly an “opening statement”… that was not announced as such by the chair; and she is just reading from her seat — even my youngest, most inexperienced students don’t do that for presentations, they are trained to go up, make a real presentation, think on their feet, with charts and visuals.
still reading from her seat, speech, speech. ANC still saying “presents evidence”. She is not presenting evidence, she is not a witness. Wala bang nakakaintindi. still reading from her seat.
momentous, historic occasion pala ito. Finally! Committee Vice Chair Fariñas interrupted her and said what she was reading was already stated in the complaint. The Chair agreed! she was given just two minutes more. i hope when partylist Bayan Muna makes an opening statement of their complaint, they do better than read from their seat like this “opening statement”, still, ongoing, she’s gone over two minutes. Still reading from her seat… interrupted by the Chair again, asked to wind up. She is not winding up.
final word na raw, she is just reading the last paragraph of her complaint… ooops, not yet winding up.
she said “mak-ka-ber” (macabre).
Now, she’s done.
Marking of evidence. Interrupted again by the congressman who asked definition of probable cause; now asking what rules will be used in the marking of evidence and on admissibility… dribble, dribble, dribbling the ball. Congressman Walden Bello argued passionately that in the minutes his comments yesterday were edited out, secretariat answered they were just summaries and the verbatim comments are in the transcripts. Committee vice chair minutes have been approved; Walden Bello still argued; vice chair said approval of minutes should be reconsidered, motion approved, minutes reconsidered, vice chair said minutes be amended as stated etc., more “pahabols” (last-minute belated changes) on the minutes, minutes amended. Chair said, “Let’s proceed now”.
Finally!
The witness takes her oath. finally, after more than one hour into the proceeding. The witness makes a speech. Instead of testifying right away as to facts of her personal knowledge. Speech, speech, people like to make speeches. Now, she is giving her statements of fact. finally. Normally, in a hearing, the person presenting the witness, after asking the witness his/her name and legal status, states the purpose of the testimony, etc.. Then, a “question-and-answer” or direct examination follows; but i guess their rules of procedure are more relaxed and loose. More speech/ exhortations after the statements of fact.
Finally, the second witness. i have to go to classes. thank you for your time. the second witness is good — he was to the point, solemn, spoke of personal experiences, of his knowledge; he spoke of his son who had died/ had been killed in a Philippine Navy hazing. heartfelt. Respondent-Ombudsman dismissed the case.
good witness.
The Committee Vice Chair is refuting the “Opening Statement” of the complainant! ha? (huh?). nag-lecture.
On Q and A, the answers of the first witness to the questions of a congressman — That’s how to testify; and not the “speechifying” earlier; she described in detail the force that was used when the police took her in custody — that’s what i’m talking about; that’s a good testimony.
(Photo by ombudsman.gov.ph, a government site, used here for educational and non-commercial purposes; cropped for composition)
Furious as hell as described by witnesses, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez threatened the signatories of the impeachment complaint against her that she would launch criminal investigations or file criminal complaints against them.
She may argue later on that since the criminal investigations would be conducted by DOJ prosecutors on complaints she would file, she could legally make such threats and not cross the lawful line ( i try not to comment on “moral lines”).
She did cross the line, the lawful line. She has jurisdiction over at least two of the signatories and the partylist representatives and congressmen who had endorsed and may endorse the impeachment complaint against her [ jurisdiction over U.P. faculty members (and therefore, technically, government employees), Professors Randy David and Karina Constantino-David and criminal jurisdiction over all the congressmen]It is she who would finally review any finding of a prima facie case of a criminal complaint against such government employees, and it is those prosecutors seated and clapping behind her during the presscon who would conduct the fact-finding and preliminary investigation of such criminal complaints.
She has the power to indict them, and she has threatened and promised to use such power against them.
Perhaps blinded by unchecked power, she had been blind to the fact that she too is an officer of the court and therefore, like all lawyers, governed by the Code of Professional Conduct — a code of rules for all lawyers which she had violated with her public threat to avenge the filing of the impeachment complaint against her by using the jurisdiction she has against such signatories.
Chastising the Supreme Court during the presscon by saying that the SC justices did not have jurisdiction over the determination of a prima facie case against those involved in the Mega-Pacific case, she has been blind to the fact that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all lawyers and she as an officer of the court is subject to the discipline required of all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
She may be constitutional unmovable except by impeachment but as lawyer, she is not constitutionally invincible — her heretofore unchecked power and threat-making, not constitutionally absolute.
(or is she about to say that she is a god-lawyer, that she is above the Supreme Court, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and that vengeance will always be hers)
