Chua surprised by Ombudsman’s quick action on Sara Duterte issue

Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua — Photo from House of Representatives

MANILA, Philippines — Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua has admitted that he and the prosecution panel were surprised with the Office of the Ombudsman’s quick action on committee recommendations to charge Vice President Sara Duterte.

Chua, in a press briefing on Monday, said that they were surprised because the Office of the Ombudsman responded to the report from his panel, the House of Representatives’ committee on good government and public accountability, just nine days after it was adopted at the plenary level and three days after the Office received it.

Chua’s panel, after an extensive probe of alleged confidential fund (CF) misuse in Duterte’s office, recommended the filing of different criminal charges against the Vice President and officials from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd). The Office of the Ombudsman, meanwhile, last June 19 asked Duterte to respond to the complaints.

READ: Ombudsman to Sara Duterte: Respond to misuse of funds complaints

“We were somewhat surprised with the quick action from our Ombudsman but just the same, we are welcoming this and we will fully cooperate,” Chua, also a member of the House prosecution team, told reporters at the Batasang Pambansa complex.

“It’s quick in a sense, just like how I mentioned earlier, regarding the timeline. Just this June 10 it was approved at the plenary, by June 16 the Ombudsman received a copy of our committee report because they were copy furnished, and on June 19 or three days thereafter the Ombudsman acted on it, asking parties to answer,” he added.

Chua said he expected that there would be a fact-finding investigation that the Ombudsman would conduct, based on their committee report, and then gather evidence for a possible case. However, the lawmaker noted that the process right now went straight for the preliminary investigation even if no pieces of evidence were attached to the House committee report.

“What I was expecting was that their field investigation office would have a fact-finding investigation first and after that, after building up the evidence, then they would proceed to a preliminary investigation,” Chua said.

“But here, they skipped other processes, and went straight to preliminary investigation considering that our committee report did not attach any evidence, except for the privilege speech of Congressman (Rolando) Valeriano from which the committee report originated,” he explained, referring to Manila’s 2nd District representative.

Last June 10, the House adopted the report of Chua’s committee, which recommended the filing of criminal charges against Vice President Sara Duterte and other officials from her office over the alleged CF misuse within OVP and DepEd.

The report was sent to the Ombudsman as a procedural matter.  However, several personalities raised concerns over this quick action from the Ombudsman, considering that the office has filed a low number of cases before anti-graft court Sandiganbayan, compared to the number of complaints that it receives.

Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative-elect Leila de Lima raised suspicions regarding the Ombudsman’s quick action over issues involving Duterte, fearing that it might lead to a dismissal of the criminal complaint against her and eventually undermine the pending impeachment trial.

According to de Lima, Ombudsman Samuel Martires’ decision asking Duterte to answer the issues raised by the House panel was “out of character,” because the Office of the Ombudsman has been slow in acting on cases including those involving Duterte’s father, former president Rodrigo Duterte, and their allies.

Martires, a retired Supreme Court associate justice, was appointed by the older Duterte to the post.  He is set to leave by July 2025 as his term expires.

READ: De Lima uneasy about Ombudsman’s move on complaints vs VP Duterte

ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro meanwhile warned Martires that people will be watching how he handles the complaints against Duterte.

READ: ‘People are watching,’ Rep. Castro warns Ombudsman on VP case 

Despite these fears, Chua said he does not want to second-guess Martires’ moves and decisions. Furthermore, Chua said that the Ombudsman might have seen probable cause already, which is why they decided to require Duterte’s answer regarding the issue.

“So we do not want to insinuate what is on the mind of our Ombudsman, but maybe they saw that our evidence can change their minds.  But the mere fact that they adopted our committee report without our evidence attached may be a sign that they saw probable cause to charge Duterte,” he claimed.

Aside from the possible charges at Sandiganbayan, Duterte was also impeached, after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified impeachment complaint against her last February 5. The articles of impeachment were immediately sent to the Senate as the Article XI, Section 3(4) of the 1987 Constitution states that a trial should proceed forthwith if one-thirds of House members file the complaint.

As one-third of 306 House members is 102, the requirement was fulfilled.  However, trial did not start as the articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break.

Duterte’s impeachment was hinged on different issues, like these allegations of CF misuse within her offices, and threats to have President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and Romualdez assassinated. /das