The 2nd Impeachment

MANILA, Philippines -- The House of Representatives might not have enough time to resolve the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez before its adjournment on June 3, the chairman of the committee tasked to hear the complaint said.

At the same time, Quezon City Representative Matias Defensor, who chairs the committee on justice, said House members had “more important matters” to tackle, including Charter change, the extension of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Law, and the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

During a hearing on Tuesday, the committee decided to assign a panel of speakers that would argue the case for and against the charges filed against Gutierrez. It did not vote on whether or not the complaint filed by former Senate President Jovito Salonga was sufficient in substance.

“The impeachment is very urgent but there are more urgent matters like the CARP, RH bill, Charter change,” Defensor told reporters.

Defensor said the committee was adopting the proposal of Bayan Muna partylist Representative Satur Ocampo for pro and anti-impeachment lawmakers to designate panel of speakers that would discuss the charges against the Ombudsman.

Each panel will be given an hour and a half to state their case before the committee votes on whether the complaint is sufficient in substance.

Before this decision, Representative Didagen Dilangalen of Shariff Kabunsuan with Cotabato City and Representative Monico Puentevella of Bacolod City proposed to shorten the process by just doing the “recital of facts” or the reading the charges against Gutierrez.

“The requirement of substance is met if there is recital of facts, the allegations in the complaint, nothing more, nothing less,” Dilangalen said.

”The rules state only the recital of facts, in order words, only those in the complaint, are explanations necessary? No,” he added.

Puentevella said the committee should dispense with the debates, stressing that like in the past, impeachment was a numbers game.

”I hope that we will dispense with this sometimes unnecessary and sometime time-consuming period in our deliberation… I think we have made our decisions already when we entered the hall,” he said.

Citing the impeachment complaint against former Commission on Elections Commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco, Puentevella said that he knew that the evidence against the election official was “very strong.”

“But in the end, this is a numbers game,” he added.

Several lawmakers pushed for a more extensive discussion on the complaints, saying the public has the right to know why Gutierrez was being impeached.

Baguio Representative Mauricio Domogan and Albay Representative Edcel Lagman said that while the rules stated that the determination of sufficiency in substance was limited to the recital of facts, there was no prohibition to explain the charges further.