House justice committee subpoenas Ombudsman

MANILA, Philippines - The House committee on justice served yesterday subpoenas to Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and her subordinates to compel them to testify in the panel’s second hearing on Tuesday on the controversial plea bargain agreement entered into by government prosecutors and former military comptroller Carlos Garcia.

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chairman of the justice committee, warned that Gutierrez and the others may be held in contempt should they ignore the summons.

“The subpoenas ad testificandum will be served today (Friday) to the Ombudsman and the prosecutors to compel them to attend the continuing hearing of the justice committee on Garcia plea bargaining agreement on Feb. 1, Tuesday,” Tupas said.

The subpoenas were signed by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. as called for by the rules of the House.

Gutierrez earlier refused to attend the hearing and questioned the jurisdiction of the committee to conduct an inquiry on the plea bargaining agreement.

Aside from the Ombudsman, the panel also summoned Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro, Chief Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit, Special Prosecutor III Jose Balmeo, Special Prosecutor II Joseph Capistrano, Deputy Special Prosecutors Jesus Micael and Robert Kallos.

The subpoenas were prompted by a motion by Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro Casiño and House Deputy Speaker and Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III after Gutierrez and her subordinates failed to attend last Tuesday’s hearing.

Gutierrez: Ombudsman is an independent body

However, Gutierrez said that it is too early to accuse her office of grave abuse of discretion.

She said other branches of government like the legislature should let the anti-graft court issue a ruling first before questioning the legality of the deal, which has allowed the accused to plead guilty to the lesser crimes of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering despite being originally charged with plunder.

Gutierrez said the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent constitutional body, free from outside pressure whether from the judiciary, the executive, or the legislature, in the discharge of its mandate to investigate and prosecute erring officials in government.

“How the case is prosecuted should be respected. If the Sandiganbayan approves it, then it is legal. If it disapproves it, then we simply go to trial,” she stressed.

She said the issue whether there was grave abuse of discretion after the anti-graft court actually issues a ruling on the legality of the plea bargaining agreement is best left with the Supreme Court.

In her letter to the Senate, Gutierrez took note of how the High Tribunal has upheld the role of the Office of the Ombudsman in disposing of its pending cases within its agency unless the Ombudsman had gravely abused its discretion.

The Sandiganbayan is yet to issue a decision on whether to grant or reject the plea bargaining agreement even if it has already ordered Garcia to comply with its conditions, which include surrendering more than P135.4 million of his alleged unexplained wealth to the government.

Its ruling is being prolonged by a motion to intervene filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which seeks to nullify the deal for allegedly being irregular and illegal.

Gutierrez and government prosecutors maintain that the agreement was in the best interest of the government as it guarantees Garcia’s criminal convictions in two crimes and the recovery of his ill-gotten assets despite weak evidence and a deficient complaint, which can eventually result in an acquittal.

The Sandiganbayan Second Division justices led by Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval hinted during a hearing on the OSG’s motion that the prosecution has weak evidence against the accused, considering that a witness testified that there are no missing military funds to speak of in the first place.

DOJ in fighting mood

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima reiterated the position of the OSG that the plea-bargaining deal between Garcia and the prosecutors did not have the required consent of the offended party, which is the military, and was patently disadvantageous to the government.

She said there is still need to investigate members of the prosecution panel in the case who approved the plea-bargain deal, even to the extent of subjecting them to lifestyle checks.

De Lima questioned the pronouncement of Assistant Special Prosecutor Capistrano that they agreed to the deal because they don’t have evidence to prove Garcia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of witnesses.

She said the agency is also set to cover the two new key witnesses under its witness protection program (WPP).

“The DOJ stands ready to cover under the WPP either or both Haydee Mendoza and (retired Lt. Col. George) Rabusa,” she said, revealing that the move was prompted by separate requests by the Palace and the Senate.

Mendoza is the former Commission on Audit (COA) officer who detailed the money trail and the sources of funds of Garcia during the Senate inquiry, while Rabusa is former military budget officer who testified on how government funds were converted into personal funds of top military officials.  – Michael Punongbayan, Edu Punay