SINGAPORE — Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang’s preventive suspension is genius. It is indubitably not legal. But it could be made legal.
In April 2010, Senior Insp. Rolando Mendoza held a bus of Hong Kong tourists at gunpoint. He asked to speak to then Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III, before whom his case was pending.
He cursed him for extorting P150,000. He shot eight hostages.
In March 2011, President Benigno Aquino III removed Gonzales for “inordinate and unjustified delay.” Mendoza’s case was pending for nine months. (Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned before her impeachment trial, replaced by just retired Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.)
Gonzales challenged Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 allowing the president to remove a deputy ombudsman.
The Supreme Court’s 2012 Gonzales decision split 7-7, upholding Section 8(2) by default (but ruled 14-0 Aquino had no “substantial basis” to remove Gonzales).
The Constitution’s text and structure can collide with great intellectual beauty.
Renowned textualist Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio invoked the Constitution’s Article XI, Section 2: removal of all nonimpeachable officials is prescribed by law.
Since the deputy ombudsman is not impeachable and Congress passed Section 8(2), the high court must enforce it and not question its underlying policy.
Justice Arturo Brion countered, structurally, that the Ombudsman cannot be independent if her deputies can be removed by the president. When the Constitution was drafted, authors such as Christian Monsod emphasized insulating Ombudsman personnel from the president, given Marcos-era abuses.
On reconsideration in 2014, the high court revoted 8-7 that Section 8(2) is unconstitutional. Brion’s philosophy won by one vote.
In 2017, Carandang announced that bank accounts of President Duterte’s family showed tens of millions of pesos in transfers. He never elaborated.
The President never waived bank secrecy. The Anti-Money Laundering Council denied disclosing bank records.
Carandang was suspended for spreading false information. This time, Morales cited Gonzales and ignored the president’s order.
A new Supreme Court decision may reverse doctrine. But the Constitution requires an “actual case,” a real conflict to force the high court to rule again.
All bluster aside, this is why Carandang’s suspension is genius.
It is clearly illegal. But if one is ready to bear the consequences, this is in fact how to force the Supreme Court to revote Section 8(2), setting aside whether an unconstitutional provision still exists.
Remember, the Constitution itself does not explicitly say who may remove a deputy ombudsman.
Six from Team Carpio (including Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno) and five from Team Brion are still on the bench. If two new justices — Francis Jardeleza, Benjamin Caguioa, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam — join Team Carpio, Section 8(2) could be legal again.
But I prefer a third theory: stability.
At some point, it is more important that a rule is clear and agreed than what the actual rule is.
Beyond politics, no dramatic change in our national values merits a revote after only four years. It is prudent to respect Gonzales given our many other legal dilemmas from martial law to Charter change. Worse, the perceived conflict of interest — precisely what Gonzales cautioned — is so great the President could end up wrong even if he is right.
Morales recounted to me how she indignantly became Ombudsman after a predecessor told her she was too old for the job. But she is far from too old to inspire millions of idealistic young Filipinos, including dozens of new Ombudsman lawyers. When our most beloved lola retires this July, a woke new generation honors her 47 years in government service.
Law ultimately turns on the conviction of the people who live by it.
The real question is: Can Morales’ adoring fans ever turn from crucial national issues, such as Isabelle Duterte’s debut, James Deakin’s video with Bongbong Marcos and whether Mayon volcano is in Naga, to ponder trivialities such as institutional independence and Morales’ legacy?
The owner of the Uniwide group has sued former senior executives of the once-lucrative retailer and former officials of the Land Bank of the Philippines for allegedly defrauding him of nearly P4 billion in assets.
In a complaint for qualified theft and estafa, businessman Jimmy Gow claimed that the unlawful acts of Jaime Cabangis as chief finance officer of Uniwide Holdings Inc. led to the company’s eventual bankruptcy.
Other respondents include Uniwide comptroller Corazon Rey, Monico Jacob, Cornelio Peralta and Arthur Aguilar.
Also impleaded were former Landbank chair Roberto de Ocampo, former Landbank president Margarito Teves and loan officer Peter Eymard Tamayo. —Marlon Ramos
Opposition lawmaker Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano has filed a House resolution calling on President Rodrigo Duterte to fully disclose the loan conditions for all projects under his much-touted “build, build, build” infrastructure program.
House Resolution No. 1612 “strongly urges” Mr. Duterte to disclose the loan terms to Congress “to promote transparency.”
The resolution, which mostly tackled Chinese loans, stressed the need to allow the House and the Senate to review and assess “the possible impacts of such loans to our debt-servicing capacity and national economy.”
Alejano described the so-called “Dutertenomics” as “fueled by such expensive loans mainly from China.”
Alejano noted that while the Duterte administration had revealed its dealings with Beijing for loans and investments, “it has been less transparent about the conditions and potential implications of these loans.”
“In light of a looming debt crisis, if such loans went unchecked, it is up to Congress and the people to put pressure on the administration to shine a light on such proceedings and open the loans up to sensible and informed governmental debate,” the resolution read.
Financial leverage
Alejano pointed out that the country risked “entering into debt bondage with its lenders, especially China.”
He said Beijing could use its “severe financial leverage” over the Philippines by strengthening its claims in the South China Sea.
“The loans could be utilized as a valuable weapon to erode Filipino sovereignty and the conditions of the loans used as a useful negotiating weapon to further Chinese territorial interests in the region,” the resolution read.
Ballooning debt
Alejano said the infrastructure program was expected to more than double the $123-billion national government debt to $290 billion, excluding interest.
If high interest rates are taken into account, the country’s debt could even reach “over a trillion US dollars in 10 years,” the resolution read.
Assuming that a 10-percent interest rate is imposed, the
national debt could reach $452 billion.
This would bring the country’s debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio to 197 percent, the second worst in the world (in layman’s terms, this meant the debt is double the total value of all goods and services produced within the country).
Even if the loan interest was only 5 percent, Alejano claimed the debt would increase by $275 billion in 10 years and bring the debt-to-GDP ratio to 136 percent.
These figures were the same as those projected by political risk analyst Andres Corr in a Forbes article dated May 13, 2017.
Aside from loans from China, the resolution also mentioned “other potential lenders, such as Japan.”
In a statement, Colmenares on Sunday slammed a House of Representatives subcommittee proposal that would “enshrine” pork barrel in the proposed federal Constitution.