With Due Respect By: Artemio V. Panganiban
The 1935 Constitution allocated the three great powers of the
government—to make laws, to execute them, and to interpret them—to
Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court (and other courts),
respectively.
Checks and balances. Using the lessons learned from the martial law
regime of Ferdinand Marcos, the framers of the 1987 Constitution
improved this tripartite system of checks and balances by limiting the
powers of the president, strengthening those of Congress and the Supreme
Court, and institutionalizing three independent commissions (on
elections, on audit, and on civil service).
Equally significant, the 1987 Charter included a new provision,
“Accountability of Public Officers,” which commands: “Public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
Congress’ role. It prescribed two ways of exacting accountability.
The first is the congressional power to impeach and oust our top
officials — president, vice president, Supreme Court justices, members
of the three constitutional commissions, and ombudsman — and to
disqualify them perpetually from holding public office for “culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
The Constitution gave the House of Representatives “the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment” and the Senate “the sole
power to try and decide” such cases.
The ease of obtaining an indictment via one-third vote of all House
members is checked and balanced by the difficulty of getting a
conviction via two-thirds vote (16) of all senators.
Congress’ impeachment power is neither checked nor balanced by any
other government agency. It is subject only to reason and equity, and
ultimately to the people’s will expressed in traditional media (TV,
radio and print), social media, opinion polls and periodic elections.
OMB’s role. The second way of exacting accountability is through the
“independent Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).” The Constitution grants the
OMB vast powers and duties, among them to “investigate on its own, or
on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.”
Moreover, the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770) empowers
the OMB “to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly
committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of
filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted” in the House
of Representatives.
In addition, Sec. 15 of RA 6770 mandates the OMB “to investigate and
initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or
unexplained wealth … and the prosecution of the parties involved
therein,” and “to give priority to complaints filed against high ranking
government officials…”
In sum, the OMB’s accountability duty includes the investigation of
impeachable officials for the purpose of (1) recommending, if warranted,
the initiation of impeachment; (2) filing civil cases for the recovery
of ill-gotten wealth; and/or (3) filing criminal indictments for
violation of antigraft and other penal statutes after the impeachable
officials shall have served their terms.
The OMB is also authorized to investigate and file criminal, civil,
or administrative cases against members of Congress and the Cabinet. No
wonder every ombudsman is under fire from these high officials.
Powerful as it may be, the OMB is checked by the judiciary,
principally by the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court which can reverse
or modify the actions and cases it initiates.
The ombudsman (and her or his overall deputy) can also be impeached
by the House and ousted by the Senate, and once ousted, can be sued
criminally and civilly, like the other impeachable officials.
With this info, I hope readers can wisely evaluate the forthcoming
impeachment proceeding against the Ombudsman: whether it is a sincere
effort to uphold accountability or a mere ploy to extract political
vendetta.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
source: Philippine Daily Inquirer
No comments:
Post a Comment