House won’t implement unconstitutional Ombudsman order on Garcia: Alvarez

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez today said the House of Representatives would not implement the order of the Ombudsman for the dismissal of Deputy Speaker, Cebu Rep. Gwendolyn Garcia, because it has no constitutional basis.

“Definitely not,” Alvarez said in a phone patch interview, when asked if he would implement the order of the Ombudsman.

The Office of the Ombudsman announced today that it ordered the dismissal of Garcia in connection with her actions when she was still Governor of the Province of Cebu.

According to the Office of the Ombudsman, a copy of the order will be provided to the Office of the Speaker for appropriate action.

“The appropriate action is not to implement the order. Why? Because there is nothing in the Constitution that allows me to do that,” Alvarez said.

He stressed that he found no basis in the Constitution for the House to implement the dismissal order against Garcia.

“In fact, it is not in the power of the Ombudsman to discipline much more to remove any member of the House of Representatives,” Alvarez said.

Since the Constitution gives the House the power to discipline or even expel any of its members, Alvarez said implementing the Ombudsman’s order would constitute violation of the charter.

“So pag ginawa ko yan I will be violating the Constitution, since merong nakalagay sa Constitution na kami lang yung may kapangyarihan to discipline or remove a member of the House of Representatives,” Alvarez said.

Paragraph 3, Section 16 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member.”

Besides, Alvarez noted that the dismissal order against Garcia was issued in connection with her actions as a governor, not as a lawmaker.

“Yung dismissal order na yan, ang ni-recommend mo dyan yung dismissal niya as a governor, not as a congressman. Baka late yung desisyon, late yung order. Dapat nilabas yung order nung siya ay isang gobernador pa lang,” Alvarez said.

However, Alvarez refused to comment on the claim of Garcia that the timing of the issuance of the order is suspect because it came at a time she was very active in her participation in the impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

“Wala naman akong pakialam diyan sa timing-timing na yan kung ano man yan. Wala rin akong pakialam kung ano man yung laro diyan. Ang sa akin lang, yung legal basis lang. That is, kung merong legal basis yan base sa ating Saligang Batas ay gagawin ko. Pero kung wala naman I will not do it,” Alvarez said.

source:  House of Representatives

Carandang case: Impeachment for Morales or Duterte?

MANILA, Philippines – In the standoff to suspend Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang, who committed an unconstitutional act? The one who ordered the suspension, or the one defying it?

Lawyer Jacinto "Jing" Paras, newly-appointed labor undersecretary, is appealing to lawmakers to sign their names on the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales that they filed before the House of Representatives. It has not moved since it lacks the required endorsement.

“If indeed they are allies of the President, then there is no more obstacle to sign and endorse the impeachment complaint against Morales, otherwise, Morales will continue to be arrogant and defiant, and will undermine the powers of the President,” Paras said.

Law professor Tony La Viña said that if President Rodrigo Duterte insists on enforcing a provision in law that has been voided by the Supreme Court, then he is committing a possibly impeachable offense.

Malacañang issued the suspension order against Carandang despite a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2014 that declared unconstitutional the provision in the Ombudsman law which previously gave the President the power to discipline Deputy Ombudsmen.

“The current law now is that the Deputy Ombudsman is not under his disciplinary authority as ruled by the Supreme Court. The President took an oath to implement our laws faithfully. If he acts contrary to that in the Carandang case, he is violating his oath of office and culpably violating the constitution. That is theoretically impeachable,” La Viña said.

La Viña added: “I emphasize theoretical because enough members of the House of Representatives must agree to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial."

Of course under the law, there cannot be an impeachment complaint against Duterte until the one-year ban has passed since Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano filed the first complaint in March 2017.

Unconstitutional

Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, a professor in Constitutional Law, agreed that the suspension order against Carandang was an “unconstitutional act.”

“That is culpable violation of the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the Ombudsman as interpreted by the Supreme Court,” Hilbay said.

Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo defended the suspension by saying all official acts enjoy presumption of legality – an established rule in Philippine jurisprudence.

“That presumption stays until a court of competent jurisdiction declares it’s unconstitutional,” Panelo said in a mix of English and Filipino.

Panelo and the rest of Palace officials are confident that the Supreme Court will reverse its rule. (READ: Malacañang on Carandang: 'There is only one President')

“True, the SC can reverse its 2014 decision – but that is also beside the point. No public official, not even the President, can adopt a 'violate-the-law-now, seek-reversal-later' attitude when its comes to decisions of the SC. That attitude is incompatible with his constitutional obligation to enforce the law: it is the antithesis of the rule of law,” Hilbay said.

La Viña and Hilbay agree that Morales’ defiance is simply the Ombudsman following the law.

“She is following the Constitution scrupulously. She should be impeached if she implements the order of Malacañang,” La Viña said.

Carandang

“The unconstitutional act is tainted by a personal conflict of interest. The President is acting not to protect a beleaguered citizen from abuse of power by the Ombudsman; he is acting to protect himself. This act cannot pass any standard of fairness,” Hilbay said.

Carandang was suspended for alleged illegal disclosure of bank details of the President and the first family. Carandang is the head investigator of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Dutertes.

Paras was among those who filed the complaint against Carandang before Malacañang, dismissing as an outright lie Carandang’s disclosure that records show a transactions of almost a billion pesos.

“This defense by Morales of Carandang clearly shows that Morales has sanctioned Carandang to lie to the public on Duterte’s bank account and made herself a party to lies being spread against the President thereby causing undue injury to the latter,” said Paras.

Supreme Court

Constitutional law professor Dan Gatmaytan said that Malacañang got exactly what they wanted, which was to create a controversy for the Supreme Court to rule on.

Malacañang is relying on the fact that the tight voting of 8-7 in 2014 can be easily reversed.

Panelo even dropped a hint to Duterte appointees Associate Justices Noel Tijam, Samuel Martires, Alexander Gesmundo and Andres Reyes Jr: “So apat ang bagong appointees so, hindi natin malalaman kung ano ang takbo ng mga utak nila (There are 4 new appointees, we don’t know how their minds work.”

Former senator Rene Saguisag, Duterte’s fellow Bedan lawyer, calls this an “arrogant and presumptuous move.”

“They are bragging that they can hold the Supreme Court by the balls,” Saguisag said.

Asked if he thinks it can be a ground for impeachment against Duterte, Saguisag said: “Impeached by lackeys? Tell me another.”

Saguisag said that we have a “gangster government” that gets whatever they want.

Can anybody stop them? “The people,” Saguisag said. – Rappler.com