Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales prefers her current job to her previous one, she admitted on Thursday.
In a GMA News TV interview, Morales recounted her experiences dealing with colleagues in her previous position of associate justice on the Supreme Court (SC), where she experienced disappointment whenever her draft decisions did not end up prevailing in the vote.
Asked if she enjoyed heading the Office of the Ombudsman, she said: “I do. I’m only one [Ombudsman], in the Supreme Court there are fifteen of you.”
In the high court, a case is typically assigned to a member in charge, who prepares a draft of the decision. In some cases, the draft gets outvoted by the other justices who issue dissenting opinions.
Hypocrisy?
“Anyone who prepares a ponencia or decision believes that it is good, that their ponencia is correct,” Morales said. “It’s just normal that you feel bad when what you thought was a very good draft turns out to be the subject of several dissenting opinions.”
She recalled how her colleagues would sometimes compliment her drafts.
But “the following day, there would be a lot of dissenting opinions,” Morales said. “Is that not hypocrisy?”
Morales recounted how a former member of the Judicial and Bar Council—who did not vote for her for justice—asked her why she took on what was deemed a “demotion” as Ombudsman.
“You see how people are power-conscious. They’re rank conscious. What I said was, it’s not ranking or protocol that you’re [supposed to be] thinking of, it’s how you love your country,” she said.
Morales admitted she was “shocked” by the SC’s July 19 ruling acquitting former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of plunder in the alleged misuse of P366 million in Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) funds.
Evidence was strong
By granting her demurrer to evidence, the high court threw out the prosecution’s case in the Sandiganbayan for insufficiency of evidence, without need of the defense to disprove what was presented.
“I believe the evidence against her was very strong, that it could have merited the participation of the defense to controvert the evidence. But it was nipped by the Supreme Court,” Morales said.
In August, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the last two cases against Arroyo—graft and ethics cases in connection with the $329-million aborted National Broadband Network project with China’s ZTE Corp. Like the PCSO plunder case, the antigraft court dismissed these cases for lack of evidence.
Morales was asked about the timing of the rulings, issued in the first months of the administration of President Duterte, who is perceived to be friendlier to Arroyo.
“I don’t like to put any color in it,” she said. “I’d rather believe it’s a coincidence.”