MANILA, Philippines—Justice Secretary Leila de Lima defended on Thursday the nomination as Ombudsman of outgoing Supreme Court Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, who was known to dissent on cases decided in former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s favor during her term of office.
“Does it mean that when you decide cases against the former president in most of the decisions, it is a sign of bias? I think, the opinion whether it’s the majority decision or dissenting, the opinions of Justice Morales will speak for themselves,” De Lima, a member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), said at a press conference Thursday.
“It is a question of really looking at those decision, how well-crafted they are, how well reasoned,” she said.
Former President and current legislator Macapagal-Arroyo, and a close political ally, formally lodged early this week their opposition to the nomination of Morales as Ombudsman. In a letter to the JBC on Monday, Mrs. Arroyo said that based on Morales’ voting pattern in the high court, the retiring magistrate may not be impartial in handling cases involving her and her family.
“If appointed Ombudsman, I sincerely believe that Justice Morales would not have the required independence and impartiality in resolving cases involving me and my immediate family,” Mrs. Arroyo said.
“While a member of the Supreme Court, in major cases involving my administration, and lately, involving efforts to investigate graft and corruption cases committed likewise during my administration, she has consistently voted to nullify or validate such acts.
“While her views did not generally prevail because the Supreme Court is a collegiate court composed of a chief justice and 14 associate justices, Ombudsman would be acting alone in the performance of his/her responsibilities,” Mrs. Arroyo added.
Morales, who will retire from the Supreme Court on June 19 at the mandatory age of 70, is considered to be the strongest candidate to fill the shoes vacated by Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
Morales had dissented in major Supreme Court rulings favoring Arroyo and her Cabinet members, including the bid of Arroyo’s House allies to prevent the impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez.
Morales, who administered President Benigno Aquino III’s oath of office last year, also opposed her colleagues’ decision to grant former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri’s petition excusing him from the congressional inquiries into the $329-million national broadband network deal with China’s ZTE Corp.
Morales is only one of the 27 candidates for the Ombudsman post. The JBC, which screens and trims down the list of candidates, will meet on June 21 to discuss the opposing views filed against all the candidates. On June 22, the JBC will begin interviewing each of the candidates. Morales’ turn is set on June 23.
Chief Justice Renato Corona heads the JBC.
Gonzalez opposition
Former Department of Justice (DOJ) secretary Raul Gonzalez also filed his opposition to Morales’ nomination.
In a separate letter to the JBC on Monday, Gonzalez said that the 1987 Constitution requires that an Ombudsman must be a person of probity and independence. “Based on my personal knowledge and observation, [Morales] miserably failed to meet such requirements and hence, must not be considered for such position.”
Gonzalez, in a separate affidavit, noted that Morales and her cousin, SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, have consistently voted against the interests of the Arroyo administration.
“In her career as member of the high court, her probity and independence is suspect as she almost always voted in tandem with Justice Antonio Carpio in all cases on the Arroyo administration and, hence, raising the suspicion that she merely adheres rather than maintains her own mind. Verily, Justice Carpio Morales could not claim to have the cold neutrality and independence, which are important criteria in the selection of the next Ombudsman,” said Mrs. Arroyo’s former DOJ chief.
Morales, who is set to retire on June 19, has been known for opinions unfavorable to former President Arroyo’s interests.
She is also reportedly among President Benigno Aquino III’s top picks for the Ombudsman post, which had been embroiled in controversy during the tenure of Merceditas Gutierrez, who was reputed to be pro-Arroyo.
Pattern of dissent
In October last year, the majority of the SC justices issued an order that temporarily stopped the House justice committee’s impeachment proceedings against then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Morales, SC Justice Antonio Carpio, and SC Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno formed the minority which said there was no legal impediment to the House panel’s proceedings.
But the high tribunal took a different turn in February this year, when the SC majority lifted the order and allowed the House panel to resume its proceedings. The House eventually impeached Gutierrez and the impeachment case was transmitted to the Senate.
Ten days before the Senate could start the impeachment trial, Gutierrez announced she was leaving her post. Her resignation took effect May 6.
In March 2010, Morales was the lone dissenter when the majority of the SC justices voted to allow then President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice during the elections appointment ban from March to June 2010. Mrs. Arroyo eventually appointed Renato Corona to be the successor of then retiring chief magistrate Reynato Puno.
In 2008, Morales was among the dissenters when the majority of the justices allowed former Socioeconomic planning secretary Romulo Neri to invoke his executive privilege in connection with the allegedly overpriced $329-million national broadband deal with the Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corp.
That same year, Morales penned the majority decision that said the Arroyo administration’s Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) was unconstitutional.
In the Lambino vs. Comelec case in 2006, Morales also voted against the people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution. The people’s initiative was supposedly a move by the Arroyo administration’s allies to extend Mrs. Arroyo’s term of office.