MANILA - The House committee on justice on Tuesday dismissed the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez for insufficiency in substance.

Thirty-eight out of 55 committee members, an absolute majority, voted to dismiss the complaint. The decision will be sent to the House plenary for its approval.
 
"This is not the end of the impeachment complaint. That is just the committee report, subject to the preservation of the plenary," said committee chairman Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor.
 
The House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases against public officials. It will take 90 votes to overturn the committee decision.
 
"We are relieved that the impeachment case has been dismissed [in the committee]. We maintain our confidence that this impeachment case has no leg to stand on," said Assistant Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni, who attended the hearing along with high-ranking officials and employees of the investigative office.

Many of them stood and clapped after Defensor announced that the committee dismissed the impeachment case.
 
Among those who voted to dismiss the impeachment complaint were the president's son, Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel "Mikey" Arroyo, and administration allies Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez and Nueva Viscaya Rep. Rodolfo Antonino.
 
The impeachment complainants, led by former Senator Jovito Salonga, accused the Ombudsman of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly sitting on "clear graft and corruption cases, some leading to the President herself or that of her closest associates."
 
Admin allies to the rescue

Amid protests from the pro-impeachment congressmen, voting was held immediately after the anti-impeachment congressmen presented their arguments. Calls for a rebuttal period to respond to "novel arguments" raised by the anti-impeachment group were denied.
 
The overwhelming vote in favor of the dismissal of the complaint also prompted Defensor to dispense with the counting of the votes of the pro-impeachment congressmen.
 
These moves were criticized by the endorsers of the impeachment complaint.
 
"It's tyranny of the majority," a frustrated Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño shouted after Defensor announced the dismissal of the impeachment complaint by the committee.
 
The attendance in Tuesday's hearing was unusually high. It was a far cry from the 12 members present last August 26 when the pro-impeachment solons presented their arguments. Many members of the majority, the administration allies who are usually absent in committee hearings, showed up on Tuesday.
 
A total of 35 committee members came in early for the roll call at the beginning of the hearing. A few more members came in before the voting. Only five members were expected to vote in favor of impeachment.
 
"It is seen in full view of the press and of the people how there were marching orders, apparently, to get this thing through even if it meant violating very important principles like counting the votes of the opposition. It's a gross violation of the process," said Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello.

But Defensor maintained that no rules were violated. "Ang kailangan lang na boto is 28. Absolute majority yun. Pero ang bumoto 38, so it is carried. For purposes of records, they can come in to register their votes. For purposes of dismissing the complaint, they only need 28 votes. They have 38 votes," Defensor said.
 
Ombudsman did her job?

The eight-man anti-impeachment group assailed the impeachment case as "speculative," mere "innuendos," and "premature" because a number of the cases mentioned are still pending in various courts.
 
Those in this group were Antique Rep. Exequiel Javier, Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, Zamboanga Del Sur Rep. Antonio Cerilles, Cebu Rep. Pablo John Garcia, 1-Utak Party List Rep. Vigor Mendoza, Iloilo Rep. Raul Gonzalez Jr., Abakada-Guru party-list Jonathan dela Cruz, and Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao.
 
"The Constitution requires that the betrayal of public trust must be characterized by grossness, oppressiveness, inexcusableness, and tastelessness to warrant the removal of the office holder. In short, the acts must be so wanton and prevalent," argued Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan in a summation of the arguments defending the Ombudsman.
 
"Culpable violation of the Constitution must be a willful and intentional violation of the constitution and not violation committed unintentionally, or involuntarily, or through an honest mistake of judgment," Domogan added.
 
"Mere allegation of delay is not enough in order to charge an institution like the Office of the Ombudsman or the Ombudsman herself as being violative of constitution or betrayal of public trust. There is nothing that would substantiate, or at least support a sufficiency in substance," added 1-Utak Party List Rep. Vigor Mendoza.
 
Mendoza defended Gutierrez on the accusation that she sat on the fertilizer fund mess.

Slow justice system

Although it took the Office of the Ombudsman three years to file cases against those involved in the controversy, Mendoza argued that the judicial system in the Philippines takes long to investigate cases. If the Ombudsman will be punished for taking three years to file a recommendation on a case, a lot of municipal, city, and regional trial court judges will be as guilty as her, he said.
 
"Ang rami ng respondents. It involved over a hundred [people]. Each one must be given their day in court. These facts belie the statement that nothing significant happened. Those facts wholly show that the Office of the Ombudsman acted on these to the best of their abilities," he said.
 
It also took the Office of the Ombudsman six years to file a case against former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, but Gonzalez said the delay cannot be attributed to Gutierrez alone. The Supreme Court dismissed the case because the allowable period to pursue the case has expired.
 
Gutierrez assumed as Ombudsman in December 2005. The case against Perez was filed three years earlier. "They didn't even try to verify the reasons behind the delay.... If the proponents simply bothered to look at the cases at the records of the Office of the Ombudsman, they'll know that this case is not yet even finished. It is very much alive and on-going," he said.
 
A motion for reconsideration is pending before the court, he said.
 
Cerilles, Garcia, dela Cruz, and Aggabao defended Gutierrez with respect to the other grounds in the impeachment complaint:
 
1. P1.3 billion Mega-Pacific poll automation contract entered into by former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chief Benjamin Abalos Sr., which was later voided by the Supreme Court;
2. the collusion and bid-rigging in the US$150 million World Bank-financed road improvement project;
3. the case of former PNP comptroller (ret.) 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
4. arbitrary dismissal of Iloilo Gov. Neil Tupas and Bataan Gov. Enrique Garcia.