MANILA, Philippines — Former Solicitor-General Frank Chavez has agreed to lead the House prosecutors’ witnesses against impeached Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on her alleged inaction on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
“I won’t let this case go down the drain,” he said in a phone call to the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
The other main witness on the complaint is Danilo Ramos, secretary general of the militant Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas.
Chavez and Ramos are the chief complainants in the second impeachment complaint that accused Gutierrez of failing to promptly act on the “anomalous” disbursement of the agricultural fund. They had filed plunder charges against former President Macapagal-Arroyo in connection with the scam.
After a frustrating seven years of inaction by the Ombudsman on the plunder case, Chavez said he was thankful that Gutierrez would be tried in the Senate for”sleeping” on it.
“In the face of frustration, when remedies are so obstructed that they become unavailable, both from the Office of the Ombudsman and the Supreme Court, where does one go?” he said in a phone call to the Inquirer.
Should Gutierrez be removed from office, the new Ombudsman could then hear the case against Arroyo, who has lost her immunity after she stepped down as president in June 2010, he said.
“It’s a good thing that there is the impeachment, and I found that as an avenue for seeing to it that the plunder charge is pursued,” he said.
Chavez filed in mid-2004 four plunder charges against Arroyo and several others, including one over the alleged release of P728 million to favored officials for the purchase of farm inputs in the run-up to the May 2004 presidential elections, which have not been acted upon to this day.
In June 2004, KMP and other militant groups also filed plunder charges against Arroyo, ex-Agriculture Secretary Luis “Cito” Lorenzo and Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante, among others, over the scam.
Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares, a member of the 11-man House prosecution panel, confirmed that the pair would be the main witnesses in the first complaint: Gutierrez’s inaction on the fund scam.
“They’re the main complainants in the case,” he said.
The House impeached Gutierrez for betrayal of public trust based on her alleged inaction on cases of anomalies implicating the Arroyos. The Senate is set to convene as an impeachment court on May 9.
Chavez, now a private practitioner, would testify on the various instances that the Ombudsman had ignored his motions and petitions to resolve the case from 2004 to present, and would back this up with documents.
“That’s the most documented, strongest case against Gutierrez,” he said. “I have all the documents.”
Through his testimony and documentary evidence, Chavez said he would prove Gutierrez’s “unjustified inaction” on the case, which he said constituted not only betrayal of public trust but obstruction of justice.
“The complaint was filed in 2004. It’s now 2011. She has not even required respondents to file their counter-affidavit. What better proof is there?” he said.
“The Ombudsman is mandated to act on complaints promptly. It’s now seven years ever since. Is that prompt?”
This early, Chavez, however, has indicated his strong disagreement with the prosecution panel’s plan to tap The Firm or the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo & Angangco law office to help prosecute Gutierrez.
“I will not allow any lawyer from the firm to present me as a witness,” he said.
Chavez argued that the law firm would be placed in a “conflict of interest situation” since it served as a counsel to Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, from 1984 to 2007.
While it has ceased to act as a counsel to the Arroyos in 2007, the law firm should observe a “confidentiality proscription,” which he said prohibited it from acting or taking part on the deliberation of a case involving previous clients at least for 10 years, he said.
Besides, Chavez contended that the law firm’s managing partner Simeon Marcelo “did not touch” the plunder case against Arroyo when he was still the Ombudsman.
“There is a consideration which is higher than the prosecution team, and higher than Chavez, and that is legal ethics,” he said when told that he could be accused of bias against the firm, with which he had tangled months ago.
The House prosecution panel had mulled hiring The Firm to assist in the prosecution of Gutierrez.