Evidence, witnesses vs Ombudsman may be ‘inadmissible’—solon

MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE 4) Some evidence and witnesses presented before the justice committee at the House of Representatives Wednesday failed to bolster the impeachment cases against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, the chairman of the panel said.

Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr. said that in a normal court proceeding, some of the witnesses would be “inadmissible” since they did not have direct knowledge of the allegations involved.  Some of the evidence, he added, was also incomplete. He said he observed this in both complaints.

“But we are being liberal about these things here because this is a political proceeding, not a judicial one,” he said.

Asked how this would impact on the complaints, Tupas said, “Those strictly inadmissible testimonies will have a direct impact when it reaches the Senate for trial.”

But the complainants and lawmakers who endorsed the charges, however, expressed confidence that what were presented during the hearing would be hard for Gutierrez to refute.

After snubbing the proceedings, Gutierrez, through his lawyer Anacleto Diaz, appealed to the committee to be given until next week to file a reply to the allegations.

Tupas gave Gutierrez until Friday to submit her reply, and the last chance to appear before the panel to defend herself when it convenes anew on Tuesday, March 8.

“If she appears, we will give her time [to explain] and we will cross examine her. … If she fails [to show up], the committee on justice will vote on the existence of probable cause,” Tupas said in an interview after Wednesday’s hearing, where the complainants presented documentary evidence and witnesses.

The first complaint, filed by former Akbayan partylist Representative Risa Hontiveros and couple Felipe and Evelyn Pestano, alleged that the Ombudsman failed to act on the case involving the death of Navy Ensign Philip Pestano in 2005, Hontiveros’ illegal arrest in 2006 and the national broadband network deal with China’s ZTE Corporation.

The second complaint, filed by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, former Solicitor General Frank Chavez, Danilo Ramos of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, said Gutierrez failed to act promptly on the “anomalous disbursement of funds and other anomalous transactions” in the case of the P729-million fertilizer fund scam despite Senate Report 54, the Commission on Elections contract with MegaPacific Inc., and the case of the generals who stashed away thousands of euros in Russia.

Deputy Speaker and Quezon Representative Lorenzo Tañada III said the decision on whether the complaints have probable cause to be sent to the Senate for a full-blown trial would be made by the entire body.

Ilocos Norte Representatove Rodolfo Fariñas, vice chairman of the justice committee, said the “best evidence are the documents, not the testimonies of certain witnesses.”

Akbayan partylist Representative Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao and Bayan Muna partylist Representative Teddy Casiño, endorsers of the first and second complaints, respectively, said these were strong enough to impeach Gutierrez.

“I believe we have a very strong case.  After this day, whatever is it that Gutierrez will say could no longer change the fact that she has been neglectful of her duties as Ombudsman,” Bag-ao said.

Casiño said they have an airtight case against Gutierrez.

“All the official records, the documents, affidavits are there, we made sure of that,” he added.

Renator Reyes Jr., Bagong Alyansang Makabayan secretary general, said their complaints have a “pretty strong chance” of paving the way for the Ombudsman’s impeachment.

“Simula na ng araw ng paniningil [The day of reckoning is here],” Hontiveros said at the start of the impeachment proceedings against the Ombudsman, adding that Gutierrez has deprived people of the justice they were seeking by dismissing their cases.

Hontiveros filed a complaint following her arrest in a rally in March 2006, but this was thrown out by the Ombudsman, saying the former lawmaker was not arrested but merely taken into protective custody.

Pestano’s complaint stemmed from the Ombudsman alleged inaction on the case of the murder of his son, Navy Ensign Philip Pestano, in 1995.

Felipe Pestano said it pained him to know that they could not get justice for their son’s death from the Navy, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and from the Ombudsman.

In August 2010, two weeks after the Pestanos filed the impeachment complaint, Gutierrez dismissed the case they had filed.

Reports have said that on Sept. 27, 1995, the 24-year-old Pestaño committed suicide on board the naval vessel BRP Bacolod City where he was serving as cargo officer. However, his parents claimed he was murdered because he tried to expose the illegal activities in the vessel, including carrying the illegal cargo of P1 billion worth of shabu.

On 23 March 2010, Pestaño’s death was declared by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) as a “homicide,” saying the Philippine government failed to conduct an “impartial, effective, and timely” investigation.

Bag-ao, who gave an overview of the first impeachment complaint said that Gutierrez’s “ignorance, incompetence” and “deliberate filing of defective evidence” caused the dismissal of many cases against government officials.

Citing Reports from the Transparency and Accountability Network, Bag-ao said there was “downward trend” in the performance of the Ombudsman that “paints a dim picture” for the country’s anti-corruption drive.

From the 55 percent conviction rate in 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman registered a conviction rate of only 14 percent in 2008.

Bag-ao also said that the 73 percent conviction rate boasted by Gutierrez in 2008 was “deceiving.”

“This tells us that the Ombudsman’s conviction rate not because of number of persons convicted but number of counts for which the accused was convicted,” Bag-ao said.

For instance, she said that the Ombudsman convicted a municipal mayor for 221 counts of charges.

Tupas opened the proceedings, which he described in an interview earlier Wednesday as a “historic moment for the country because this is the first time that an impeachment complaint has gone past sufficiency of the grounds.”

In a separate interview, Tañada said the proceedings would be a “history for the House, a precedent setting since it is the farthest that any impeachment complaint got to.”

Tañada said that the farthest that an impeachment proceeding got was with the impeachment case against former Commission on Elections chairman Bernardo Pardo in the late 1990s but which was voted down.