Ombudsman maintains she has power to probe Corona

May 1, 2012

By Gabriel Cardinoza
Inquirer Northern Luzon

ROSALES, Pangasinan—Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales said here on Monday that her office has jurisdiction over cases filed against impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona, escalating a debate on whether the graft buster can investigate an impeachable official.

The debate was sparked by the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s report on Saturday that Morales, acting on complaints filed in the Office of the Ombudsman, had ordered Corona to explain his millions in peso and US-dollar bank accounts.

Indicating that he would not comply, Corona replied through his lawyer that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago disagreed, telling a radio interview on Sunday that the Ombudsman can investigate impeachable officials.

Here, on Monday, Morales herself cited the source of her power to investigate Corona.

“The Ombudsman Act empowers me to go over all complaints against all government officials, [regardless] of how the complaints were elevated to the office,” Morales said.

A retired Supreme Court justice, Morales was reacting to Corona’s assertion, made through his lawyer Ramon Esguerra, that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the Chief Justice and there was no reason for him to comply with Morales’ April 20 order to explain in writing his millions in peso and US-dollar accounts in the bank that he could not have earned on his modest government salary.

Morales told reporters that there were three complaints on the alleged undeclared income of Corona, among other charges.

“Since I am mandated to evaluate the complaint, he being an impeachable officer, I had to assess the evidentiary value of the complaint and on preliminary evaluation, I thought that the Chief Justice should be heard,” Morales said.

“And so, following the provision of the Ombudsman Act, which says that if there is reasonable ground to believe that further inquiry should be conducted, then the Ombudsman should ask the impeachable officer for purposes of determining whether there is serious misconduct toward the filing of an impeachment case to answer within 72 hours from notice,” she said.

Morales did not go into details, as she answered only three questions from reporters.

Morales was here to inaugurate the regional office of the deputy ombudsman for Luzon.

Matter of interpretation

Responding to a question posed during a radio interview on Sunday, Santiago said the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the Ombudsman from investigating the Chief Justice.

“It’s a matter of interpretation. There is no categorical prohibition. It’s just the logic of the situation involved,” she said, stressing that the government had the right to prosecute “an impeachable official like the Chief Justice.”

But Santiago cautioned the Ombudsman from proceeding with the preliminary investigation, as it would “complicate matters because there would be two separate investigations concerning the same subject matter.”

“I would think that is unfortunate at this time because he’s being asked to fight a battle on two fronts,” Santiago said, adding:

“Let him first defend himself [in the Senate],” Santiago said. “If he is found guilty, then he would be the subject of [a criminal] investigation, where the Ombudsman could come in since the Ombudsman is like our fiscal or prosecutor,” she said.

Yes, she can

University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque was firmly behind Morales in the investigation of the Chief Justice.

Roque said on Monday that under the Ombudsman Law, Morales could investigate even impeachable officials for the purpose of recommending their impeachment to Congress.

The form for the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) also contains a notation authorizing the Ombudsman to verify the information in the financial report, Roque said.

The Ombudsman may even look into omissions, or information that was withheld from the SALN form, Roque added.

Roque said that if Morales did not do her duty and look into Corona’s accounts, she might be impeached.

“It’s just [Corona’s] luck that we have a competent Ombudsman now,” he said.

Investigate only

Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo Angara said the Ombudsman could investigate the Chief Justice, but not suspend, remove or bring cases against him.

Speaking with the Inquirer by telephone on Monday, Angara, a lawyer and a spokesperson on the House prosecution team in Corona’s impeachment trial, explained that under the Constitution only Congress can remove an impeachable official from office.

In her April 20 order, Morales told Corona to explain the bank accounts, “including those denominated in US dollars the aggregate value of which amounts to at least $10,000,000.”

Corona issued a statement on Monday, denying he had $10 million in the bank. “It simply does not exist,” he said.

The Chief Justice said his investigation by the Ombudsman was part of Malacañang’s “retaliation” for the Supreme Court’s April 24 decision upholding its ruling in November last year that ordered the distribution of Hacienda Luisita, a sugar plantation in Tarlac province owned by the family of President Aquino.

Of course, not

Malacañang quicky responded, with presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda pointing out that Morales’ order was dated April 20 and received by Corona on April 23, a day before the Supreme Court handed down its final ruling on Hacienda Luisita.

Obviously, Lacierda said, the Ombudsman’s order is not a retaliation for the Hacienda Luisita ruling.

“It is highly possible that since the Chief Justice already knew that he was required to explain by the Ombudsman, he is now conditioning the public to think the letter was a retaliation, when in fact it came before the Luisita decision,” Lacierda said in a text message to reporters.

He said the Chief Justice “should be more prudent with his statements.”

“It clearly shows his unstatesmanlike behavior,” Lacierda said.

New impeachment

Later, at a press briefing, Lacierda said the Ombudsman could “recommend a case of impeachment against an impeachable official.” At least this was the “tenor” of Morales’ order to Corona, Lacierda said.

A new impeachment complaint will have to wait until December if the Senate acquits Corona, who is under trial on charges of culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.

If he is convicted and removed from office, the Office of the Ombudsman could bring criminal charges against him based on the complaints now under investigation. With reports from Christine O. Avendaño, Michael Lim Ubac and Leila Salaverria