SC orders Ombudsman to explain ACM ruling

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to respond to the petition filed by opposition lawmakers seeking to nullify its decision clearing Commission on Elections (Comelec) officials of any criminal liability over the voided P1.3-billion automated counting machines (ACMs) contract.

The High Court has given Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez 10 days to answer the petition filed by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr.

Pimentel led other senators in filing the petition questioning the decision of the Ombudsman absolving the Comelec led by its chairman Benjamin Abalos and officials of MegaPacific in connection with the purchase of the 1,991 ACMs amounting to P1.3 billion.

Pimentel, along with Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Panfilo Lacson, Alfredo Lim, Maria Ana Consuelo Madrigal, Luisa Ejercito, Jose "Jinggoy" Estrada, Richard Gordon and Rodolfo Biazon, asked the High Court to hold Gutierrez in "indirect contempt" for clearing Abalos and Comelec Commissioners Resurreccion Borra, Florentino Tuason and Rufino Javier of criminal and administrative liability in connection with the deal.

The senators said Gutierrez committed grave abuse of discretion in clearing the Comelec officials and MegaPacific from criminal liability by declaring lack of evidence to pin them on any criminal liability over the voided contract.

Last Oct. 20, the Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines (ITFP) also asked the High Court to hold in contempt of court Gutierrez and other officials of the Office of the Ombudsman for absolving the Comelec officials and MegaPacific.

The ITFP was the group that earlier questioned the Comelec-Mega Pacific deal that SC had declared as null and void on Jan. 13, 2004.

In a 44-page motion, the ITFP also asked the SC not to set aside the supplemental resolution issued the panel of investigators of the Ombudsman led by Orlando Casimiro, which cleared the Comelec officials and MegaPacific on the voided ACM contract last Sept. 27.

The Ombudsman earlier asked the Supreme Court to complete its investigation over the ACM contract.

Casimiro declared there is no "clear and convincing evidence of malice, bad faith, bribery and undue advantage" when the Comelec officials entered into a deal with Mega Pacific which led to the purchase of the 1,991 ACMs.

The ITFP also urged SC to order Gutierrez to charge the concerned Comelec officials and Mega Pacific officials before the Sandiganbayan.

"Gutierrez is supposed to dispense justice as the Ombudsman. The supplemental resolution of Gutierrez dated September 27, 2006 shows her as a person of compromise and expediency," the ITFP said.

"In clearing the Comelec officials and the conspiring private individuals, the Ombudsman did not succeed in restoring the tarnished image and reputation of the Comelec. On the contrary, she only succeeded in dragging down the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsman to the same level as the integrity, or lack of it, of the Comelec," the ITFP said.

The ITFP cited the Jan. 13, 2004 ruling, which voided the ACM deal of Comelec with Mega Pacific.

The ITFP also noted the Ombudsman initiated the investigation against Comelec and Mega Pacific officials.

Last June 28, the Ombudsman issued a partial resolution recommending the filing of graft charges against Eduardo Mejos, Gideon de Guzman, Jose Balbuena, Lamberto Llamas and Bartolome Sinocruz Jr. in conspiracy with private respondents Willy Yu, Bonnie Yu, Enrique Tansipek, Rosita Y. Tansipek, Pedro Tan, Johnson Fong, Bernard Fong and Lairiano Barrios.

The Ombudsman also recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Jose Tolentino, Jaime Paz, Zita Buena-Castillon and Rolando Viloria.

The Ombudsman said Mejos, De Guzman, Balbuena, Llamas and Sinocruz are guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and are meted the penalty of dismissal from the service pursuant to Section 52(A-3) of Rule IV of the uniform rules on administrative cases in the Civil Service Commission’s resolution no. 991936, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service.

The ITFP said the supplemental resolution of the Ombudsman issued last Sept. 27 "is a surprising and complete departure from its earlier resolution."

They said Gutierrez had placed herself higher and more supreme than the Supreme Court in absolving the concerned poll officials of any liability over the deal.

The ITFP accused Gutierrez of "abuse or unlawful interference with the processes of the court and improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice."

The ITFP maintained there is probable cause to indict the Comelec officials and the owners of Mega Pacific over the deal.

The ITFP also cited that the Comelec’s own official request for proposal specifically required a 99.9995 percent accuracy rating for any acceptable system.