Voting unanimously, 28-0, the House committee on justice declared the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez sufficient in form.

The impeachment complaint against Gutierrez was filed by former Senator Jovito Salonga and other concerned citizens. It accused Gutierrez of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for sitting on "clear graft and corruption cases, some leading to the President herself or that of her closest associates."

Salonga on Tuesday told the House committee on justice that he will bring the impeachment case against Gutierrez to the Supreme Court if the committee fails to act on it.

"I hope and pray that it will not be necessary for us to invoke this power of the judicial department," Salonga told the committee after discussing the powers of the legislative chamber to put to task anyone in government who commits grave abuse of discretion.

"What I was saying actually was that I hope it will not be necessary for us to go to the Supreme Court. But when it becomes necessary, we will invoke that power under the provisions of the Constitution because you have committed grave abuse of discretion," he later explained to reporters.

Asked if he meant to threaten the congressmen, Salonga smiled and said: "But I said, 'I hope it will not be necessary.' I put in the negative so that it would not sound like a threat, but it is actually one."

Salonga explains

Under regular circumstances, Salonga, the lead complainant, should only have been given the chance to speak after the complaint's sufficiency in form and substance is decided upon by the committee. 

“This is not the time for any of the parties to speak. This is the time for the committee to determine the sufficiency in form. We will be establishing a very bad precedent. It is not that we do not respect a legal luminary. Let us follow the rules. We should not come out with separate rules,” said Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan.

But despite protests from some committee members, House justice committee chair Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor ruled to allow Salonga to speak before the committee for three minutes before the committee tackled the impeachment complaint.

In March, after the impeachment complaint was filed, Salonga also appealed to congressmen “to do [what's] right” by supporting impeachment moves against Gutierrez.

“Palagay ko madadala na sila. They are going to face elections in 2010. I think our representatives in the lower House will probably do right to our people by giving attention to our impeachment complaint,” Salonga then told abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak in a phone interview.

“In truth, her [Gutierrez's] offenses are well documented in the impeachment charges signed, and filed against her by around 30 Filipinos with indisputable credibility,” Salonga had said.

The House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate cases of impeachment, which needs to be affirmed by a one-third vote of the lower chamber.

Absent congressmen

With 28 members present on Tuesday (May 5), the justice committee finally proceeded to vote on the impeachment complaint. Last week, it failed to take up the impeachment complaint due to the absence of administration congressmen who chose to attend another committee hearing.

After the ruling on the form of the complaint, the House justice committee will later proceed to determine if the complaint is sufficient in substance. Only after the complaint passes the two requirements will the House plenary vote on whether to impeach Gutierrez. It may either approve or reject the recommendation of the House justice committee.

Absolute majority

In a ruling that remains to be debated in the lower chamber, House justice committee chair Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor ruled on April 28 that an "absolute majority" is needed to make decisions on impeachment cases.

Absolute majority requires at least one-half plus one of the total number of members regardless of how many are present. Only 23 members were present during the first hearing, prompting Defensor to adjourn the hearing. It was short of five members to make up the absolute majority of 28. The committee has 55 regular members.

The opposition congressmen argued that a only a “simple majority” or at least one-half plus one of all members present is required.

Ex-officio members

On Tuesday (May 5), the debates continued on whether or not they should allow the ex-officio members to vote, and if the “absolute majority” should change if the ex-officio members are included.

Aside from the 55 regular members, there are 15 ex-officio members who are allowed to participate in the committee, or a total of 70 members. If the ex-officio members are allowed to vote, the new absolute majority would be 36, not 28.

With only 28 members present on Tuesday, clarifications were sought to make sure the committee's ruling would not be questioned later.
 
“I follow the [Rep. Simeon] Datumanong interpretation, and by tradition, we've been following that. When the rules say 'absolute majority of all the members,' my interpretation of 'all the members' is the regular members. But we include the ex-officio members in determining the quorum,” Defensor said.

Defensor said the absolute majority in the committee is pegged at 28, regardless of how many ex-officio members are present.

“The ex-officio members have voting powers. They form part of the quroum. In determining the [absolute majority] we include the ex-officio members. They're like reserve [members]. That is the Datumanong interpretation,” he added.

These issues were not raised in the previous impeachment cases filed against President Arroyo because the hearings were always well-attended.

FG Protection?

Opposition solons earlier alleged that other congressmen may have been ordered by First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo to dismiss the impeachment bid.

The allegation stemmed from an earlier statement issued by the First Gentleman supporting Gutierrez. "Leave her (Gutierrez) alone to do her job," the First Gentleman had been quoted by his lawyer, Ruy Rondain. Gutierrez's critics alleged that this was a signal from Malacañang to support Gutierrez.

Gutierrez, who previously served as presidential legal counsel, was a batchmate of the First Gentleman at Ateneo Law School.

Defensor dismissed the allegation. "We can do better than that kung manghihimasok ang Malacañang. Hindi namin sa form yan dapat gawin because it doesn't mean anything,” he said.

Cases dismissed, unresolved

In the impeachment complaint, Gutierrez is accused of "inaction, mishandling, or downright dismissal" of the following high-profile cases:

• P1.3 billion Mega-Pacific equipment purchase contract entered into by former Commission on Elections chief Benjamin Abalos Sr., which was was later voided by the Supreme Court;
• the collusion and bid-rigging in the US$150 million World Bank-financed roads project;
• extortion case against former Justice Secretary Hernando ‘Nani’ Perez;
• P1 billion fertilizer fund mess involving former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc-Joc" Bolante;
• the case of former PNP comptroller Gen. Eliseo dela Paz, who was caught carrying 105,000 euros (P6.9 million), which exceeded the 3,000 euro limit for departing passengers in Moscow;
• arbitrary dismissals of Iloilo Gov. Neil Tupas and Bataan Gov. Enrique Garcia;

The dismissal of governors Tupas and Garcia, and the delayed action of the Ombudsman in the graft and corruption cases against Perez, Bolante, and Dela Paz, also constitute culpable violation of the Constitution, the complainants said.

The cases of the local officials involve violations of the governors’ right to due process while the latter involve violations of the people’s right to a speedy disposition of cases, the complainants said.

Bayan Muna representatives Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño, Anakpawis Rep. Rafael Mariano, Gabriela representatives Liza Maza and Luzviminda Ilagan, and Hontiveros were among the original endorsers of the complaint. They were later joined by Cibac representatives Joel Villanueva and Cinchona Gonzalez, Bukidnon Rep. Teofisto Guingona Jr., newly-proclaimed Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello, and Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tanada III.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcript of Salonga's statement to the House justice committee, May 5, 2009:

"I must apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, for my inability to be present at the first hearing as I was out of town and could no longer cancel or defer my appointment.

"I need not go to the substance of the charges found in our impeachment complaint. I just want to say something. I will finish it as soon as possible. It may be unnecessary to stress that under Article 8 of the 1987 Constituion, judicial power includes the power to determine if there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of any branch or instrumentality of the government. You happen to be, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, an insturmentality of the government.

"I hope and pray that it will not be necessary for us to invoke this power of the judicial department. Thank you Mr. Chairman."