The 2nd Impeachment

MANILA, Philippines—After hours of debate over whether or not there was a quorum, the House committee on justice Tuesday found the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez sufficient in form, with none of the 28 committee members present voting against.

The next committee meeting will determine whether the complaint, charging Gutierrez with betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly sitting on high-profile cases involving administration allies, is sufficient in substance.

Gutierrez’s office was unperturbed by the findings, stressing that the committee had yet to touch on the merits of the complaint, filed on March 2 by civil society groups led by legal luminary and former Senate President Jovito Salonga.

Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus Tuesday said Gutierrez was ready to respond to the allegations formally, if asked.

But, since “the process has just begun, let us just allow the House committee on justice to complete its work,” De Jesus said.

Gutierrez has described the allegations against her as “baseless.”

Private lawyers for Gutierrez

De Jesus said the impeachment complaint had not hampered the operations of the agency as Gutierrez had her own team of private lawyers to represent her, led by Harriet Demetriou.

Before the committee members cast their votes Tuesday, they engaged in a lengthy debate on whether an absolute majority of the 55 members was needed for a vote, or whether a simple majority of all the members present was all that was needed.

They also debated on whether to allow Salonga to address the committee, as the minority wanted.

Asked to say a few “words of wisdom,” Salonga imparted what he later said was meant to be a warning.

In his remarks, Salonga said he hoped the complainants would have no need to question the action of the committee members later before the judiciary for grave abuse of discretion.

“You happen to be, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, an instrumentality of this government. I hope and pray that it may not be necessary for us to invoke the power of this judicial department,” Salonga said.

He later told reporters that he made his remarks “so that they would know what they were headed for if they commit a grave abuse of discretion.”

“I said I hope it will not be necessary. I put it in the negative so that it will not sound like a threat, but it is actually one,” he said.

Numbers to make a quorum

Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez raised the question of whether there was a quorum, noting that while the committee had 55 members, there were also four ex-officio members present. Thus, the quorum should be 30 members. If only 28 are present, then there’s no quorum, he said.

But committee chair Rep. Matias Defensor of Quezon City said the traditional practice in the committee had been to base the quorum on the total number of members. He said ex-officio members are not included when setting the quorum though they are given voting powers and are counted during the roll call.

Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros said that if Defensor’s interpretation were to be followed, it could be used to derail the impeachment because if the majority were to absent themselves from future proceedings, a quorum may not be mustered to vote on the sufficiency of the complaint’s substance.

Defensor prevailed on the question of a quorum but the minority got its way when Salonga was allowed to speak.

Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan objected to letting a complainant address the committee before the sufficiency of the complaint’s substance was determined.

“We will be establishing a dangerous precedent... it’s not that we don’t respect a legal luminary, we should follow the rules,” Domogan said.

But Golez said the panel could set a good precedent by suspending the rules to let Salonga speak since it was not often that a person of his distinction came before the committee.