Ombudsman’s stand no plea vs Garcia deal
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales may be opposed to the plea bargain agreement with accused ex-military comptroller Carlos Garcia, but she is not formally asking the Sandiganbayan antigraft court to nullify the deal.
This is what Morales’ representatives told a clarificatory hearing which the Sandiganbayan had called Thursday to ascertain exactly what Morales wanted when she filed a position paper last month on the controversial plea bargain deal on the Garcia plunder case.
Lawyer Christian Uy, who represented the absent Morales, said the position paper was just “food for thought” and not an actual motion asking the Sandiganbayan to reject the deal.
“The position paper should be treated as a position paper, not a motion. It’s basically just an expression of the Ombudsman’s views,” Uy told the Sandiganbayan 2nd Division.
Since what the Ombudsman had filed was not a motion, Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos said all that the court would be required to do was to take note of it.
‘We’ll just note it’
“If there’s nothing you want to do, we will just note it,” she said.
“The resolution approving the plea bargain agreement is in no way being sought to be nullified,” she added.
Motions are filed when parties in a case want the court to take action.
In the position paper that was hailed by critics of the deal, Morales asked the Sandiganbayan to nullify its resolution approving the plea bargain between Garcia and Ombudsman prosecutors and to continue Garcia’s trial for plunder and money laundering.
Morales also said it was premature to conclude that the evidence against Garcia, a former military comptroller, was weak. She said further that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) must be allowed to intervene in the case.
At Thursday’s hearing, Baldos asked Morales’ representative how the court should view the position paper since while such pleadings may be filed in other government agencies, it did not mean much in a court.
She noted that the position paper had a prayer, meaning it had relayed what it wanted the court to do.
But Uy said the Ombudsman was just expressing her stand and the court should not be misled by the fact that there was a prayer in the position paper.
Baldos asked why the Ombudsman filed the position paper if she felt that it did not need to be acted upon.
She wanted to share
Morales wanted to share her views on the matter, Uy replied.
“She felt there was just a need to get her thoughts across,” he said.
He also said it was up to the court to decide what to do about the position paper.
Baldos said that since nothing was being asked of the court, it would just proceed to resolve an earlier OSG motion seeking a reversal of the Sandiganbayan’s approval of the plea bargain.
“You cannot blame the court now if the court will just note and proceed to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration of the OSG,” she said.
Baldos said she wondered whether the position paper was just a “rose-colored position” to shift the blame for the supposed bungling of the Garcia case.
Uy replied that there was no intent to shift the blame on anyone.
Baldos asked whether there was a valid reason why the new Ombudsman had deviated from the stand of her predecessor on the plea bargain.
