By CARMELA FONBUENA

In January, the Office of the Ombudsman was about to decide whether or not to endorse to the Sandiganbayan two complaints filed last year on the botched broadband deal. One was filed by Rep. Carlos Padilla against Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) Secretary Leandro Mendoza. The other was filed by the National Bureau of Investigation against other DOTC officials involved in the project and responsible for the missing broadband contracts.

Lawyer Jose De Jesus, spokesman of the investigating body, said that when they were barraged with more complaints based on the ongoing broadband deal based on the Senate investigations, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez decided to consolidate all of them. She created an investigative panel and began conducting public preliminary hearings.

(During the time of former President Joseph Estrada, then Ombudsman Aniano Disierto also consolidated the corruption cases against him. The case only prospered when Estrada was ousted, however. He was eventually convicted, but was given a presidential pardon.)

Aside from the first two cases on the botched broadband deal, seven more are currently investigated by the panel. Out of the seven, only one appears to be moving forward—the anti-graft case filed a group led by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona. Lawyer of complainant Cibac Rep. Joel Villanueva only verified his complaint on March 4. The complainants are still filing objections to some of the decisions and procedures of the investigating panel.

Personal appearance

This is how the preliminary hearings on the botched broadband deal are undertaken. Because some of the complaints have been filed last year, complainants must first appear before the investigating panel and verify that they are still pursuing the cases. Out of the complainants, only lawyer Rafael Pulido has not formally verified. He has written the panel to verify his complaint, but the lawyer of Rep. Jose De Venecia--whom Pulido charged with graft—is contesting the validity of Pulido’s verification.

Once the complaints are verified, the complaint affidavits are given to the respondents. Unless there are motions objecting to the procedure of the investigating panel, the respondents have another ten days to respond and file their counter-affidavits. First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo and former National Economic and Development Authority Secretary Romulo Neri have filed this week their counter-affidavits in the complaint of Guingona.

President Arroyo, who is a respondent in the complaint filed by Guingona, was not summoned by the panel. Guingona’s group is expected to file a motion seeking the inclusion of the President in the preliminary hearings. The fourth respondent, former Commission on Elections chair Benjamin Abalos Sr., failed to meet the 10-day deadline to file his counter-affidavit. He was given an extra five days to comply.

Upon receiving the counter-affidavits, the complainants have to file their reply or respond to the defense of the respondents. This may be the last step in the process of gathering evidence. The Office of the Ombudsman will have the discretion whether or not to conduct a clarificatory hearing to clarify certain arguments or evidence in the written affidavits of the complainants and the respondents. In the two cases by Rep. Padilla and the NBI, the Office of the Ombudsman did not conduct clarificatory hearings.

Several factors may delay the Office of Ombudsman’s decision on the consolidated cases. One, more cases may be included in the consolidated hearings. Senator Jamby Madrigal recently filed a case against the alleged abductors of Senate key witness Rodolfo Noel “Jun” Lozada. Former Senator Jovito Salonga also filed a case against President Arroyo. De Jesus said the investigating panel may also consolidate these two cases with the rest.

Two, complainant Ernesto Francisco also filed a motion seeking to suspend the hearings in the Ombudsman until the Senate terminates its hearing. The panel earlier denied his motion, but Franciso is expected to file a new motion for the panel to reconsider.

Respondents charged with Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Filed by

Status as of March 4, 2008

1. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

1. Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Laywers Harry Roque, et. al.

The investigating panel did not include the President in the investigation, but lawyer Harry Roque is expected to file a motion to make her appear before the body

2. First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo

1. Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Laywers Harry Roque, et. al.

FG’s lawyer has submitted a counter affidavit on March 4. Complainants are expected to file their Reply.

2. Lawyer Ernesto Francisco (Violation of Anti-Graft Law, and E.O. 317 or “Prescribing a Code Conduct and Personal Relations of the President,” RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”

Lawyers are given extra 5 days to submit counter affidavit

3. Lawyer Oliver Lozano

He filed a motion objecting to certain procedures of the panel. Respondents are given 5 days to reply to his objections.

3. Former Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos

1. Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Laywers Harry Roque, et. al.

Abalos’s lawyer are given 5 days extension to submit counter affidavit

2. Akbayan Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros Baraquel

Abalos’s lawyer are given 5 days extension to submit counter affidavit

3. Lawyer Ernesto Francisco

Lawyers are given extra 5 days to submit counter affidavit

4. Lawyer Oliver Lozano

He filed a motion objecting to certain procedures of the panel. Respondents are given 5 days to reply to his objections.

4. Former National Development and Economic Authority Romulo Neri

1. Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Laywers Harry Roque, et. al.

Counter Affidavit was filed on March 3. Respondents are expected to file their Reply.

5. Rep. Jose De Venecia Jr.

1.Lawyer Roberto Rafael Pulido

Abalos’s lawyer is contesting the manner that Pulido verified his complaint

6. Jose “Joey” De Venecia III

1. Lawyer Roberto Rafael Pulido

Lawyer is contesting the manner that Pulido verified his complaint

7. Department of Transportation and Telecommunications Secretary Leandro Mendoza
(other charge: Violation of Procurement Law)

Rep. Carlos Padilla

Pending the resolution of the Ombudsman

8. Other DOTC Officials
(Malversation of Public Property)

National Bureau of Investigation

Pending the resolution of the Ombudsman

9. ZTE Officials
(Violation of Procurement Law

Rep. Carlos Padilla

Pending the resolution of the Ombudsman

10. John and Jane Does

Lawyer Ernesto Francisco