Jurisprudence says impeach first before criminal case — Chua

Rep. Joel Chua — File photo by Niño Jesus Orbeta

MANILA, Philippines — There is jurisprudence stating that impeachable officials must be impeached first before a criminal case can be filed against him or her, Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua said on Monday.

Chua in a press briefing was asked about the possibility that Vice President Sara Duterte may be tried by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, all while the Office of the Ombudsman conducts a preliminary investigation and either files a case before anti-graft court Sandiganbayan or dismisses complaints regarding alleged confidential fund (CF) misuse.

In response, Chua said that a provision in G.R. No. 146486 Office of the Ombudsman versus Court of Appeals — a Supreme Court (SC) Second Division decision dated March 4, 2005 — states that an Ombudsman and his or her deputies, being impeachable officials, must be impeached first before they are charged.

“I just have one concern here because there is a case, the Ombudsman versus Court of Appeals wherein our respectable Supreme Court said that impeachable officers like the Ombudsman, before they are charged, must be impeached first,” Chua told reporters in Filipino at the Batasang Pambansa complex.

“So I do not know how this will be reconciled regarding the case of our Vice President if ever they (Ombudsman) release a decision on the matter before the impeachment court comes up with their own decision,” he added.

In the decision, the Supreme Court mentioned jurisprudence, particularly a 1995 ruling on petitions seeking the disbarment of former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. The ruling stated that “the Ombudsman and other constitutional officers who are required by the Constitution to be members of the Philippine Bar and are remova[ble] only by impeachment, are immunized from liability possibly for criminal acts or for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or other claimed misbehavior.”

According to the 1995 decision, the Ombudsman or his deputies “must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Ombudsman be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively – e.g., in disbarment proceedings – for any wrong or misbehavior which may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.”

“It was stated there, as far as I know, that their mandate is to wait first for the results of impeachment before cases are filed — like if a vice president gets impeached, is that only by that time should charges be filed,” he said.

A possible solution, Chua said, was that the Ombudsman’s investigation and filing of cases against Duterte would be deferred, but the probe on other Office of the Vice President (OVP) and Department of Education (DepEd) officers involved would continue.

“Insofar as the other respondents, except for the Vice President, they can move forward with the proceedings but for the Vice President, they should not push with it unless and until the results of the impeachment comes out, that’s the only time that she can be charged,” he said.

Last June 10, the House of Representatives adopted the report of Chua’s panel, the House committee on good government and public accountability, 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.

Just nine days after that — and three days after receiving the copy of the committee report — the Office of the Ombudsman asked Duterte to respond to the complaints based on the report from Chua’s committee.

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

Chua admitted that he and the prosecution panel for Duterte’s impeachment trial were surprised with the Ombudsman’s quick action on committee recommendations to charge Duterte.

Other lawmakers, meanwhile, raised concerns over this quick action from the Ombudsman.  Mamamayang Liberal party-list Representative-elect Leila de Lima noted that the Ombudsman has filed a low number of cases before Sandiganbayan, compared to the number of complaints that it receives.

De Lima feared that these developments might lead to a dismissal of the criminal complaint against Duterte 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 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.

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 said.

Duterte’s impeachment came after 215 lawmakers filed and signed a verified 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. /das