Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Summation of the Impeachment Complaint Substance_ Against the Ombudsman

Summation of the Impeachment Complaint Substance_ Against the Ombudsman

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45 |Likes:
Published by anakpawispartylist
Summation of the Impeachment complaint filed by the progressive bloc against Ombudsman Merciditas Gutierrez
Summation of the Impeachment complaint filed by the progressive bloc against Ombudsman Merciditas Gutierrez

More info:

Published by: anakpawispartylist on Sep 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/06/2010

pdf

text

original

 
1
 
SUMMATION
 
OF
 
THE
 
CASES
 
PRESENTED
 
BY
 
THE
 
MINORITY
 
BLOC:
 
The
 
Impeachment
 
Complaint
 
against
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
Merceditas
 
Guttierez
 
is
 
sufficient
 
in
 
substance
 
Rep.
 
Neri
 
Javier
 
Colmenares
 
(Bayan
 
Muna)
 
According
 
to
 
the
 
Rules
 
on
 
Impeachment
 
of 
 
the
 
House
 
of 
 
Representatives,
 
substance
 
is
 
sufficiently
 
established
 
if 
 
an
 
impeachment
 
complaint
 
contains
 
“a
 
recital 
 
of 
 
 facts
 
constituting
 
the
 
offense
 
charged 
 
and 
 
determinative
 
of 
 
the
 
 jurisdiction
 
of 
 
the
 
committee”.
 
In
 
determining
 
sufficiency
 
in
 
substance,
 
therefore,
 
the
 
issues
 
that
 
should
 
be
 
tackled
 
by
 
the
 
Justice
 
Committee
 
are
 
limited
 
to:
 
(i)
 
Does
 
the
 
recital
 
of 
 
facts
 
constitute
 
the
 
offense
 
charged?
 
This
 
simply
 
means
 
that,
 
presuming
 
the
 
allegations
 
in
 
the
 
complaints
 
are
 
true,
 
these
 
allegation
 
shall
 
constitute
 
the
 
offense
 
charged
 
such
 
that,
 
for
 
example,
 
in
 
an
 
Impeachment
 
Complaint
 
which
 
charges
 
the
 
offense
 
of 
 
corruption
 
the
 
Committee
 
only
 
need
 
to
 
ask
 
whether
 
the
 
acts
 
alleged
 
in
 
the
 
complaint
 
indeed
 
constitute
 
corruption.
 
On
 
the
 
charge
 
of 
 
purposely
 
shielding
 
certain
 
public
 
officials
 
from
 
prosecution
 
in
 
the
 
complaint
 
at
 
bar,
 
the
 
Committee
 
only
 
needs
 
to
 
resolve
 
whether
 
the
 
act
 
of 
 
shielding
 
indeed
 
constitutes
 
betrayal
 
of 
 
public
 
trust.
 
The
 
Justice
 
Committee
 
does
 
not
 
need
 
to
 
look
 
into,
 
at
 
least
 
in
 
this
 
stage,
 
whether
 
there
 
is
 
evidence
 
to
 
prove
 
that
 
there
 
was
 
intentional
 
failure
 
to
 
investigate
 
or
 
prosecute,
 
since
 
this
 
will
 
be
 
tackled
 
in
 
the
 
next
 
stage
 
where
 
the
 
Committee
 
aims
 
to
 
establish
 
whether
 
or
 
not
 
probable
 
cause
 
exist.
 
It
 
is
 
in
 
the
 
probable
 
cause
 
hearing
 
stage
 
where
 
evidence
 
may
 
be
 
presented
 
to
 
prove
 
or
 
disprove
 
probable
 
cause.
 
If 
 
the
 
committee
 
will
 
tackle
 
at
 
this
 
stage
 
the
 
issue
 
of 
 
whether
 
the
 
allegations
 
are
 
true
 
or
 
if 
 
it
 
is
 
supported
 
by
 
evidence,
 
then
 
there
 
is
 
nothing
 
to
 
resolve
 
in
 
the
 
“probable
 
cause
 
hearing”
 
stage.
 
If 
 
the
 
committee
 
finds
 
that
 
the
 
allegations,
 
even
 
if 
 
they
 
were
 
true,
 
does
 
not
 
constitute
 
an
 
offense,
 
then
 
the
 
complaint
 
shall
 
be
 
dismissed
 
for
 
insufficiency
 
in
 
substance.
 
(ii)
 
Does
 
the
 
offense
 
charge
 
fall
 
within
 
the
 
 jurisdiction
 
of 
 
the
 
Justice
 
Committee’s
 
 jurisdiction
 
?
 
The
 
issue
 
here
 
is
 
whether
 
the
 
offenses
 
charged
 
in
 
the
 
complaint
 
indeed
 
constitute
 
at
 
least
 
one
 
of 
 
the
 
grounds
 
for
 
impeachment
 
under
 
the
 
Constitution.
 
Even
 
if 
 
the
 
allegations
 
do
 
constitute
 
an
 
offense
 
but
 
the
 
very
 
offense
 
is
 
not
 
among
 
the
 
“impeachment
 
offenses”
 
under
 
the
 
Constitution
 
then
 
the
 
Committee
 
does
 
not
 
have
 
 jurisdiction
 
over
 
the
 
offenses
 
since
 
none
 
of 
 
the
 
offenses,
 
even
 
if 
 
proven
 
true,
 
can
 
result
 
in
 
the
 
impeachment
 
of 
 
the
 
public
 
official.
 
 
2
 
If 
 
the
 
committee
 
finds
 
that
 
if 
 
the
 
allegations
 
constitute
 
any
 
of 
 
the
 
impeachment
 
offenses
 
under
 
the
 
Constitution,
 
presuming
 
they
 
are
 
true,
 
then
 
the
 
complaint
 
shall
 
be
 
then
 
considered
 
sufficient
 
in
 
substance.
 
Only
 
after
 
this
 
determination
 
can
 
the
 
Committee
 
get
 
to
 
the
 
next
 
stage—that
 
stage
 
where
 
the
 
Justice
 
Committee
 
aims
 
to
 
find
 
out
 
if 
 
there
 
is
 
evidence
 
to
 
support
 
the
 
allegations
 
and
 
there
 
is
 
probable
 
cause
 
to
 
impeach
 
the
 
said
 
public
 
official.
 
Endorsers
 
of 
 
herein
 
Impeachment
 
Complaint
 
find
 
that
 
the
 
allegations
 
in
 
the
 
complaint
 
constitute
 
as
 
impeachment
 
offenses
 
under
 
the
 
Constitution,
 
and
 
the
 
complaint,
 
therefore,
 
is
 
sufficient
 
in
 
substance.
 
The
 
Endorsers,
 
therefore,
 
ask
 
the
 
committee
 
to
 
find
 
the
 
same
 
sufficient
 
in
 
substance
 
so
 
that
 
the
 
proceedings
 
can
 
move
 
forward
 
and
 
require
 
both
 
the
 
complainants
 
and
 
the
 
respondents
 
to
 
present
 
evidence
 
of 
 
their
 
respective
 
claims.
 
The
 
Allegations
 
constitute
 
impeachment
 
offenses
 
under
 
the
 
Constitution
 
There
 
is
 
a
 
crime
 
but
 
no
 
criminal.
 
The
 
Supreme
 
Court
 
and
 
the
 
Senate
 
found
 
crimes
 
were
 
committed
 
by
 
members
 
of 
 
the
 
Arroyo
 
administration
 
but
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
not
 
only
 
failed
 
to
 
prosecute
 
but
 
even
 
failed
 
to
 
investigate
 
these
 
public
 
officials.
 
There
 
is
 
a
 
crime,
 
but
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
does
 
not
 
want
 
to
 
charge
 
the
 
criminal.
 
This
 
is
 
the
 
context
 
within
 
which
 
the
 
ombudsman
 
is
 
being
 
charged,
 
not
 
only
 
with
 
dereliction
 
of 
 
duty
 
but
 
also
 
of 
 
intentional
 
misuse
 
of 
 
office
 
to
 
harass
 
opponents
 
while
 
covering
 
up
 
for
 
allies
 
of 
 
the
 
government.
 
Laws
 
were
 
violated
 
in
 
the
 
case
 
of 
 
the
 
“Euro
 
generals”
 
who
 
even
 
admitted
 
to
 
their
 
illegal
 
acts
 
but
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
did
 
not
 
see
 
them
 
fit
 
for
 
prosecution.
 
Such
 
inaction
 
is
 
an
 
ultimate
 
fact
 
which
 
if 
 
true
 
constitutes
 
the
 
impeachable
 
offense
 
of 
 
betrayal
 
of 
 
public
 
trust.
 
Laws
 
were
 
violated
 
in
 
the
 
fertilizer
 
scam
 
but
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
failed
 
to
 
act
 
on
 
charges
 
filed
 
with
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
as
 
early
 
as
 
2004
 
and
 
failed
 
to
 
prosecute
 
former
 
Usec
 
Jocjoc
 
Bolante
 
despite
 
the
 
misuse
 
of 
 
hundreds
 
of 
 
millions
 
of 
 
pesos
 
in
 
overpriced
 
fertilizer
 
distributed
 
to
 
fake
 
NGOs
 
during
 
the
 
election
 
campaign
 
of 
 
Pres.
 
Gloria
 
Arroyo.
 
This
 
is
 
an
 
ultimate
 
fact
 
which
 
if 
 
proven
 
true
 
constitutes
 
the
 
impeachable
 
offense
 
of 
 
betrayal
 
of 
 
public
 
trust
 
and
 
culpable
 
violation
 
of 
 
the
 
Constitution.
 
While
 
it
 
took
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
years
 
to
 
file
 
a
 
defective
 
case
 
against
 
Sec.
 
Nani
 
Perez,
 
it
 
took
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
a
 
short
 
period
 
to
 
file
 
cases
 
against
 
opponents
 
of 
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
and
 
the
 
Arroyo
 
administration
 
such
 
as
 
Gov.
 
Niel
 
Tupas
 
and
 
Gov.
 
Enrique
 
Garcia.
 
This
 
is
 
an
 
ultimate
 
fact
 
which
 
if 
 
 
3
 
proven
 
true
 
constitutes
 
the
 
impeachable
 
offense
 
of 
 
betrayal
 
of 
 
public
 
trust
 
and
 
culpable
 
violation
 
of 
 
the
 
Constitution.
 
In
 
short,
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
misused
 
and
 
abused
 
her
 
office
 
in
 
violation
 
of 
 
the
 
constitutional
 
mandate
 
that
 
public
 
officials
 
are
 
accountable
 
to
 
the
 
people
 
at
 
all
 
times,
 
not
 
some
 
times,
 
but
 
at
 
all
 
times
 
and
 
that
 
she
 
should
 
perform
 
her
 
task
 
with
 
integrity
 
and
 
efficiency.
 
At
 
the
 
very
 
least,
 
this
 
Honorable
 
Committee,
 
must
 
find
 
something
 
wrong
 
with
 
an
 
ombudsman
 
who
 
finds
 
no
 
reason
 
to
 
investigate
 
even
 
if 
 
the
 
Supreme
 
Court
 
or
 
the
 
Senate
 
declares
 
that
 
a
 
crime
 
was
 
committed
 
in
 
a
 
public
 
transaction.
 
At
 
the
 
very
 
least
 
this
 
Honorable
 
Committee
 
should
 
find
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
impeachable
 
for
 
violating
 
the
 
constitutional
 
requirement
 
that
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
should
 
act
 
“promptly”
 
on
 
complaints,
 
in
 
any
 
form,
 
against
 
public
 
officials.
 
The
 
Ombudsman
 
Merciditas
 
Guttierez,
 
 just
 
like
 
Pres.
 
Gloria
 
Arroyo,
 
is
 
“immune”
 
from
 
suit.
 
The
 
only
 
accountability
 
mechanism
 
left
 
against
 
“immune”
 
public
 
officials
 
like
 
the
 
respondent,
 
is
 
the
 
mechanism
 
of 
 
impeachment.
 
To
 
impeach
 
the
 
Ombudsman
 
is
 
not
 
tantamount
 
to
 
finding
 
her
 
guilty.
 
An
 
impeachment
 
merely
 
means
 
that
 
charges
 
before
 
the
 
Senate
 
may
 
be
 
filed
 
against
 
her
 
so
 
that
 
evidences,
 
whether
 
in
 
her
 
favor
 
or
 
against
 
her,
 
may
 
be
 
presented
 
by
 
her
 
or
 
by
 
her
 
accusers.
 
This
 
Honorable
 
Committee
 
is
 
asked
 
to
 
give
 
life
 
to
 
this
 
accountability
 
mechanism
 
not
 
by
 
construing
 
the
 
rules
 
in
 
her
 
favor,
 
but
 
in
 
 judiciously
 
interpreting
 
the
 
rules
 
in
 
favor
 
of 
 
the
 
people,
 
in
 
favor
 
of 
 
accountability—for
 
after
 
all,
 
public
 
officials
 
are
 
accountable
 
to
 
the
 
people
 
at
 
all
 
times.
 
Imposible
 
na
 
ngang
 
kasuhan
 
ang
 
mga
 
opisyal
 
na
 
ito
 
dahil
 
sa
 
immunity
 
nila,
 
pahirapan
 
pa
 
natin
 
ang
 
taong
 
bayan
 
na
 
naglakas
 
ng
 
loob
 
na
 
magsampa
 
ng
 
impeachment.
 
Anyway,
 
hindi
 
naman
 
makukulong
 
si
 
Ombudsman
 
kung
 
ma
 
impeach
 
siya.
 
Di
 
rin
 
siya
 
matatanggal
 
sa
 
puwesto
 
kung
 
ma
 
impeach
 
siya.
 
Ang
 
mangyari
 
lang
 
ay
 
mag
 
kakaroon
 
ng
 
proseso
 
na
 
kung
 
saan
 
siya
 
at
 
ang
 
nag
 
hahabla
 
ay
 
magkakaroon
 
ng
 
oportunidad
 
na
 
mag
 
presinta
 
ng
 
kanya
 
kanyang
 
ebidensiya.
 
Sabi
 
ni
 
ombudsman,
 
handa
 
siyang
 
harapin
 
ang
 
mga
 
bintang
 
sa
 
kanya.
 
Handa
 
siyang
 
mag
 
presinta
 
ng
 
ebidensiya
 
para
 
kontrahin
 
ang
 
mga
 
bintang
 
sa
 
kanya.
 
Sino
 
ba
 
naman
 
tayo
 
sa
 
Komiteng
 
ito,
 
ang
 
hahadlang
 
para
 
bigyan
 
siya
 
ng
 
oportunidad
 
na
 
linisin
 
ang
 
pangalan
 
niya.
 
Pag
 
nagsampa
 
ka
 
ng
 
kaso
 
sa
 
korte,
 
inuutusan
 
ng
 
 judge
 
ang
 
akusadong
 
sumagot
 
di
 
po
 
ba.
 
Pag
 
nagsampa
 
ka
 
ng
 
reklamo
 
sa
 
piskal,
 
inuutusan
 
ng
 
piskal
 
ang
 
akusado
 
na
 
mag
 
submit
 
ng
 
counter
 
affidavit
 
di
 
po
 
ba?
 
Ang
 
tungkulin
 
ng
 
Komiteng
 
ito
 
ay
 
hindi
 
ang
 
I
 
dismiss
 
ang
 
complaint
 
kundi
 
utusan
 
si
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->