8el Lena ?

asmln C Maranda
Legal 8esearch
College of Law
San 8eda College

Impeachment Comp|a|nt aga|nst the Cmbudsman

Iacts

Congress enacLed on november 17 1989 8epubllc AcL no 6770 or Lhe Cmbudsman AcL of
1989 whlch provldes for Lhe funcLlonal and sLrucLural organlzaLlon of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman and
dellneaLes lLs powers funcLlons and duLles 8ased on Lhe [ournal deLalllng Lhe dellberaLlons over 8A
6770 on AugusL 17 1988 Congress soughL Lo have an Cmbudsman who would be an effecLlve and
acLlvlsL waLchman" 1hls ls ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe 1987 ConsLlLuLlon whlch guaranLees Lhe lnsulaLlon of
Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman from pollLlcal lnfluence and lnLerference 1he ConsLlLuLlon exempLs Lhe
appolnLmenL of Lhe Cmbudsman and hls depuLles from congresslonal conflrmaLlon prescrlbes a flxed
Lerm of offlce for Lhem durlng whlch Lhelr salarles cannoL be reduced and granLs Lhe Cfflce flscal
auLonomy among oLher provlslons LhaL secure Lhe lndependence of Lhe Cmbudsman

uesplLe Lhe measures Lo shleld Lhe Cmbudsman from geLLlng pollLlclzed Lhe publlc and mosL
speclally Lhe congress has clalmed LhaL Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman ls synonymous Lo lnacLlon
mlshandllng or downrlghL dlsmlssal of clear cases of grafL and corrupLlon some leadlng Lo Lhe resldenL
herself or LhaL of her closesL assoclaLes" 1hls lead Lo Lhe flllng of lmpeachmenL complalnL agalnsL
Cmbudsman MercedlLas CuLlerrez by former Akbayan 8epresenLaLlve 8lsa PonLlveros and members of
Lhe 8agong Alyansang Makabayan and oLher mlllLanL groups lasL SepLember 1 and 7 2010 of whlch Lhe
Pouse [usLlce commlLLee found Lhe Lwo lmpeachmenL complalnLs sufflclenL ln boLh form and subsLance

1hls lead Lo anoLher lssue ln whlch Lhe Cmbudsman asked Lhe Supreme CourL Lo lssue sLaLus
quo anLe order when Congress vlolaLed Lhe provlslons of SecLlon 3(3) ArLlcle xl of Lhe 1987
ConsLlLuLlon whlch bars more Lhan one lmpeachmenL proceedlng agalnsL Lhe same lmpeachable offlcer
wlLhln a perlod of one year SecLlon 13 8ule 110 of Lhe 8ules of CourL whlch provldes LhaL a complalnL
musL charge only one offense and SecLlon 8 8ule 110 of Lhe 8ules of CourL whlch provldes LhaL a
complalnL musL aver acLs or omlsslons consLlLuLlng Lhe offense" 1hls prayer was granLed and Lhe SC has
seL a daLe Lo Lo hear Lhe oral argumenLs of Cmbudsman CuLlerrez saylng LhaL Lhe Congress also acLed
wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon aslde from Lhe vlolaLlon of Sec 3(3) of ArL xl and Lhe laLLer as
represenLed by Lhe SollclLor Ceneral

Separat|on of owers

1he ConsLlLuLlon enshrlned and proLecLs Lhe docLrlne of separaLlon of powers provldlng Lhe
leglslaLlve [udlclal and execuLlve deparLmenL as coequal branches ln Lhe CovernmenL nelLher can
oversLep each oLher and Lhey are held supreme ln Lhelr own sphere WlLh Lhe lssuance of Lhe sLaLus quo
anLe order Lhe Congress has held Lhe SC as lnLerferlng wlLh Lhe excluslve power of Lhe Congress Lo hear
and Lry lmpeachmenL cases agalnsL lmpeachable offlclals 1hey also argued LhaL Lhey have Lhe
prerogaLlve Lo lssue and consLrucL rules governlng lmpeachmenL cases whlch Lhe Supreme CourL should
respecL lesL Lhe docLrlne wlll be Lhrown Lo Lhe dogs roponenLs of Lhe lmpeachmenL case held LhaL Lhe
lssuance of Lhe SC was a pollLlcal quesLlon and even a move Lo proLecL Lhe Cmbudsman 8umors of
speedy lssuance was based on Lhe composlLlon of Lhe SC whlch was mosLly appolnLed and endorsed by
former presldenL Clorla Macapagal Arroyo

ur|sprudence

We may remember a slmllar lmpeachmenL case flled agalnsL Lhen SC !usLlce Pllarlo uavlde ln
lranclsco vs Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves whlch was also abouL Lhe consLlLuLlonal command LhaL no
lmpeachmenL proceedlng shall be lnlLlaLed agalnsL any offlclal more Lhan once wlLhln a perlod of one
year 1he CourL ruled (1) LhaL lL had boLh Lhe power and Lhe duLy Lo deLermlne Lhe meanlng of Lhe
consLlLuLlonal prohlblLlon (2) LhaL Lhe lnlLlaLlon of Lhe lmpeachmenL Look place when Lhe complalnL was
referred Lo Lhe CommlLLee on !usLlce slnce lL ls only Lhen LhaL Lhe Pouse acLs on Lhe complalnL and (3)
LhaL Lhe second complalnL vlolaLed Lhe consLlLuLlonal prohlblLlon 1he facLs of Lhe case are noL LhaL
slmllar Lhough slnce Lhe case aL bar conslsLs of Lwo complalnLs on dlfferenL grounds were agalnsL
Cmbudsman CuLlerrez on dlfferenL days as ln Lhe uavlde case buL unllke ln Lhe uavlde case boLh
complalnLs were referred Lo Lhe !usLlce CommlLLee on Lhe same day 1he quesLlon LhaL Lhe CourL wlll
have Lo resolve assumlng lL assumes [urlsdlcLlon as lL dld ln Lhe uavlde case ls wheLher Lhe second
complalnL should be dropped or comblned wlLh Lhe flrsL

ln a recenL lnLervlew wlLh ALLy LrnesLo lranclsco (a law professor aL Lhe ue La Salle unlverslLy
and Lhe amanLasan ng Lungsod ng Maynlla on AnCs 1he 8undown Wednesday nlghL) sald lL ls hlgh
Llme for Lhe SC Lo reexamlne whaL ls now known as Lhe lranclsco rullng ln Lhe uavlde lmpeachmenL
case 8ecause Lhls lranclsco rullng or docLrlne has been abused by lmpeachable offlclals who only have
Lo ask somebody Lo flle a weak lmpeachmenL complalnL and Lhey wlll be lmmune for Lhe resL of Lhe
year


Stand|ng

l am lncllned Lo agree wlLh ALLy lranclsco 's oplnlon LhaL Lhe SC should reconslder Lhe lranclsco
rullng 1he presenL docLrlne lmplles LhaL speed wlns Lhe game lnsLead of subsLance" whlch ls hlghly
adverse Lo Lhe proLecLlon of our rlghLs and Lhe baLLle agalnsL corrupL offlclals 1he presenL lssue whlch
lnvolves noL [usL Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe complalnLs buL Lhe compeLence and lnLegrlLy of Lhe Cfflce
of Lhe Cmbudsman ls aL sLake 1he [udlclary should be glven due respecL (speclally comlng from a law
sLudenL) buL Lhe evenLs LhaL ls currenLly happenlng could noL help one belng convlnced wlLh lssues
clalmlng Lhe hasLy lssuance of Lhe order and Lhe alleged proLecLlon glven Lo Lhe Cmbudsman under Lhe
name of [udlclal revlew ALLy lranclsco ln Lhe same lnLervlew sLaLed LhaL lLs premaLure Cmbudsman
CuLlerrez sLlll has a loL of remedles ln Lhe Pouse Lhe proceedlngs before Lhe Pouse have noL been
compleLed lranclsco added 1hey can move for a remedy 1hey can move for Lhe llfLlng of Lhe sLaLus
quo order Moreover she could also bravely face Lhe lmpeachmenL case rapped agalnsL her and
prove LhaL lndeed she dld noL commlL any culpable vlolaLlon of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon nor beLrayed Lhe publlc
LrusL

LasL SepLember 28 2010 Congress dlsobeyed SC order and proceeded Lo hear Lhe lmpeachmenL
complalnL flled buL also sLaLed LhaL Lhey wlll aLLend Lhe oral argumenLs seL by Lhe Supreme CourL
lndeed Lhe evenLs has been confuslng and frusLraLlng Powever amlcus curlae lr 8ernas has glven hls
sLand ln whlch l could flnd no beLLer subsLlLuLe for hls words Lo wlL


LeL Lhe CourL say LhaL Lhe case ls noL rlpe for declslon and send Lhe case back for Lhe Pouse Lo
declde wheLher ln facL Lhere are Lwo dlsLlncL complalnLs or wheLher everyLhlng can be placed under one
complalnL for beLrayal of publlc LrusL" l favor Lhls Lhlrd opLlon whlch more clearly respecLs Lhe
prerogaLlve of Lhe Pouse llnally l repeaL whaL l wroLe ln an earller plece lmpeachmenL ls noL [udlclal
[usLlce characLerlzed by Lhe cold neuLrallLy expecLed of [udges lL ls pollLlcal [usLlce whose ouLcome
depends so much on Lhe blases of Lhe varlous acLors lnvolved lL wlll be lnLeresLlng Lo Lry Lo Lrace Lhe
marks of blas manlfesLed by Lhe varlous parLlclpanLs ln Lhe currenL dramalncludlng Lhe Supreme
CourL"