House panel defies SC on Merci impeachment

MANILA, Philippines - Despite being warned against triggering a constitutional crisis, the House committee on justice voted yesterday to defy the Supreme Court order suspending the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, citing “undue interference” from the high tribunal.

After three hours of intense debates that began at 9:30 a.m., the committee voted 33-14 in favor of the motion raised by Deputy Speaker and Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada to continue with the impeachment hearings in defiance of the SC’s status quo ante order. Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon abstained.

Tañada and Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, chairman of the committee, said they would tackle in the next hearing the grounds for the two impeachment complaints against Gutierrez filed separately by party-lists Akbayan and Bayan Muna last July 22 and Aug. 3, respectively.

Tupas however said he would still have to “consult with the House leadership” on when to hold the next impeachment hearing.

“It is the position of the undersigned members, with due courtesy to a co-equal branch of government, that the issuance of the subject Status Quo Ante Order on Sept. 14, 2010 is an undue interference in and a clear infringement on the constitutional mandate of the House Committee on Justice, considering that the proceedings are in the early stage and are still internal matters of the Committee,” the motion, signed by 17 members of the panel, read.

“I don’t want to be cited, arrested for contempt by the Supreme Court,” Southern Leyte Rep. Roger Mercado said in casting his dissenting vote.

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., however, sought to avert a constitutional crisis by declaring that there would be no impeachment proceedings until the SC finally resolves the case.

“We’re not at war here,” Belmonte told reporters. But it was not clear whether he would direct Tupas’ committee to stop the hearings.

He pointed out the committee did not conduct an actual hearing but only met to debate on the SC’s order.

“What the panel said is really the reiteration of what we have been saying that we have the exclusive authority…to initiate impeachment proceedings. We cannot abdicate that power,” Belmonte said.

Sources said the committee firmed up its position in a secret caucus on Monday. Technically, there is still no violation of the SC directive since the committee has not yet set a date for the actual hearing to discuss Gutierrez’s case.

Tañada said Belmonte earlier issued a directive banning other hearings to allow the chamber to focus on plenary debates to ensure the passage of the proposed P1.64-trillion national budget before Congress goes on recess on Oct. 15.

“There has been no actual violation of the status quo ante order,” Belmonte said.

He said the House has 60 session days to dispose of the impeachment complaints so he sees the resumption of the hearings when Congress resumes work in November.

“As I said, they, as well as all of us, are very hopeful that a resolution will be made favorable to the House insofar as the case pending with the SC is concerned,” Belmonte said.

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, vice chairman of the panel, maintained the chamber was exercising judicial courtesy in responding to the SC directive but careful not to submit to its jurisdiction.

Tañada said the committee would file its comment on the High Court’s ruling either today or on Thursday.

Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga and Mercado—all lawyers—took turns attacking the motion.

“We have destroyed the rule of law in this country and exercised the rule of men in the committee of justice…we will have a constitutional crisis,” Rodriguez said.

Datumanong and Alagad party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta said the situation was triggered by the majority’s insistence in tackling the two separate complaints despite a constitutional provision that only one impeachment complaint can be tackled in one year against the same official.

Barzaga warned that in defying the SC, the situation could worsen and might even lead to a situation where lawmakers would try to impeach the members of the High Tribunal.

Mum but confident

Gutierrez made an appearance at the House in the afternoon to attend the hearing on the Office of the Ombudsman’s proposed P1.109-billion budget for next year.

“I’m here to present the budget and I hope that we will get the budget that we need for 2011,” Gutierrez told reporters, adding she might be scolded by the SC for sub judice if she commented further on the committee’s decision.

“We will have the oral arguments I think by the first week of October so I will have my day. I hope and I pray that I will that my position will be favorably taken,” she said.

“I know (a) majority of the congressmen are wise and decisive and I know they are thinking hard about the complaints against me,” she said.

She maintained the allegations have no basis stressing that the Office of the Ombudsman has a conviction rate of 73 percent.

“They are the ones creating a constitutional crisis,” lawyer Butch Diaz said referring to the committee members who voted to defy the SC order.

“Why are we rushing it? Is this something that is so vital to our survival?” he asked.

During the budget hearing, Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello, one of those pushing for Gutierrez’s ouster, said he would not move to reduce the budget but instead would seek to increase it to include her one-way travel expenses of $2,168 to Kabul, Afghanistan “so that we can send the Ombudsman to her comrades in the Taliban.”

Gutierrez responded by saying she would go anywhere “in the service of my country” but said Bello should accompany her to Kabul.

SC’s appeal

Meanwhile, the SC appealed to lawmakers to respect the rule of law in the impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez.

Court administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez told reporters that while it is still “too early to say” if the conflict between the SC and the House could lead to a constitutional crisis, such scenario would depend on the next move of the lawmakers.

“That (constitutional crisis) is up to Congress – if they will abide by the order of the Court,” he said.

“The status quo ante order issued by the Court is still in effect,” he added.

“It’s their discretion to proceed or not to proceed. As far as the Court is concerned, a status quo ante order is issued. And we all know that rule of law should be observed,” he said in an interview.

The SC official admitted that they were surprised by the House committee’s move.

“The Court was under the impression that the Solicitor General had the same position as that of the House in filing the motion to defer oral argument to a later date. For the Court, it was a manifestation of respect to the decision of the Court to issue status quo order, that’s why it is also surprising that this (development) is coming out,” he lamented.

Asked if the action of the House committee constitutes contempt of court, Marquez declined to comment and said he would still consult the magistrates who were busy yesterday afternoon hearing the case involving the truth commission.

Marquez said magistrates only tackled the impeachment case against Gutierrez during the full-court session in the morning. They granted the motion of the Ombudsman and Office of the Solicitor General to reset the oral arguments on the case from Sept. 30 to Oct. 5 at 2 p.m.

He said the issue of constitutional separation of powers between the SC and the House, which was raised by the 33 members of the House committee on justice as basis for defying court’s restraining order, would be tackled in the hearing.

But Marquez stressed that the SC’s issuance of status quo ante is within the “judicial power” of the High Court as provided for in Article VIII Section 1 of the Constitution.

He said the main issue is whether or not the House committee violated a constitutional provision banning impeachment proceedings within a year of each other. With Edu Punay and Michael Punongbayan


PHIL STAR