Ombudsman: We're not grabbing Congress' power to impeach
Ombudsman Samuel Martires denied he is out to sabotage the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte when his office acted on the report filed by the House Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability.
'We are not grabbing the power of Congress to impeach an impeachable officer, no. Neither are we trying to supplant the findings of the House of Representatives," he said.
Martires said that according to their rules, they should treat committee reports submitted to his office as a complaint.
'We do not treat it as a paper weight or a scratch paper,' he said.
On June 19, the Ombudsman acted on the committee report and asked Duterte to file her counter-affidavit to the alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President.
Duterte filed her counter-affidavit at the Ombudsman on Friday, June 27, 2025.
The House of Representatives had submitted a committee report on June 16, alleging plunder, technical malversation, falsification, use of falsified documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, and betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Also named as respondents were Edward Fajarda and Gina Acosta, Special Disbursing Officers; Asst. Secretary Atty. Sunshine Charry Fajarda, Director for Strategic Management Office; retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin, Undersecretary for Administration; and Annalyn Sevilla, Undersecretary for Finance Service. All are from the Department of Education.
Those charged from the Office of the Vice President were Atty. Zuleika Lopez, Undersecretary and Chief of Staff; Lemuel Ortonio, Asst. Chief of Staff; Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco, Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group; and Col. Raymund Dante Lachia, Commander of Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group of the Philippine Army.
Martires said that his office is merely investigating the complaint and would wait for the impeachment trial to finish to determine whether any criminal charges may be filed against Duterte if and when the impeachment court convicts her.
'What we have right now is the power to investigate but not to prosecute. The Ombudsman or any investigating body has to await the result of the impeachment proceeding. But if the Vice President is acquitted by the impeachment court, wala kaming power to charge her,' he said.
He added that the investigation may take longer than the trial, saying it may be up to the next Ombudsman to tackle the issue.
'Medyo matagal-tagal pa ito. 'Yun ang mahirap sa mga taong nerbiyoso. 'Yun ang mahirap sa mga taong hindi nag-aral. We are not dismissing anything. What is there to dismiss when our only power is to investigate,' he said.
Martires is due to retire on July 27 after serving as Ombudsman for seven years.
He was appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte first as associate justice of the Supreme Court and later on as Ombudsman.
Martires denied he acted on the House committee report to pre-empt the impeachment court to favor the younger Duterte.
'Mula nang ako'y in-appoint ni Digong (former President Duterte) sa Supreme Court hanggang sa Ombudsman, ni minsan ay hindi nakiusap sa akin si Digong,' he said. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
House prosecutors welcome Ombudsman stand to await VP Sara trial result
Vice President Sara Duterte speaks to the media in Melbourne, Australia on June 22, 2025. Courtesy: Office of the Vice President video screenshot The House of Representatives prosecution panel backed the remarks made by Ombudsman Samuel Martires who said his office would wait for the outcome of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte before resolving her case. "Ang sinabi niya (Martires) ang kaniyang kapangyarihan lang ay mag-imbestiga, hindi ang mag-desisyon (He said his power is to investigate, not to decide on cases)," House prosecution panel spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy said at the Saturday News Forum. "Aantayin niya ang kahihinatnan ng impeachment trial, which is tama (He will wait for the outcome of the impeachment trial, which is correct). I commend the Ombudsman for that," Bucoy said. In an interview on Friday regarding the issue, Martires said his office does not have the power to prosecute. Further, should the Senate impeachment court in favor of the Vice President, the Office of the Ombudsman may no longer pursue charges, according to Martires. Martires said, "The Ombudsman or any investigating body has to await the result of the impeachment proceeding." "But if the Vice President is acquitted by the impeachment court, wala kaming power to charge her (But if the Vice President is acquitted by the impeachment court, we have no power to charge her)," the Ombudsman said. Martires had also denied that he was out to sabotage the trial when his office acted on the report submitted by the House Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability. On June 19, the Ombudsman asked Duterte to file her counter-affidavit to the alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President. Duterte filed her counter affidavit with the Ombudsman on Friday, June 27, 2025. The House of Representatives had submitted a committee report on June 16, alleging plunder, technical malversation, falsification, use of falsified documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. Also named as respondents were Edward Fajarda and Gina Acosta, Special Disbursing Officers; Assistant Secretary Atty. Sunshine Charry Fajarda, Director for Strategic Management Office; retired Major General Nolasco Mempin, Undersecretary for Administration; and Annalyn Sevilla, Undersecretary for Finance Service. All of them are from the Department of Education. Those charged from the Office of the Vice President were Atty. Zuleika Lopez, Undersecretary and Chief of Staff; Lemuel Ortonio, Assistant Chief of Staff; Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Nolasco, Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group; and Colonel Raymund Dante Lachia, Commander of Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group of the Philippine Army. Martires had said the investigation may take longer than the trial, adding that it may be up to the next Ombudsman to tackle the issue. "Mabuti nagsalita na si Ombudsman Martires that he is leaving it to the next Ombudsman to address the case… We welcome that because 'yun po ang tamang proseso eh," Bucoy said. (It's good that Ombudsman Martires stated that he is leaving it to the next Ombudsman to address the case… We welcome that because it is the proper process.) Martires is due to retire on July 27 after serving as Ombudsman for seven years. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
8 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC a 'last resort' for House prosecutors if Senate junks VP Sara impeachment —spox
The House of Representatives Prosecution Panel would resort going to the Supreme Court (SC) on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte should the Senate move to dismiss the case, according to their spokesperson Atty. Antonio Audie Bucoy. "Wala kaming ibang pupuntahan kasi ang SC lang ang final judge ng Constitutional issue of whether it is compliant with the Constitution or not,' Bucoy said at the Saturday News Forum. (We have nowhere else to go because the SC is the final judge of the Constitutional issue of whether it is compliant with the Constitution or not.) Bucoy made the remark after Duterte entered a 'not guilty' plea in the verified impeachment complaint filed against her by the House of Representatives, which she called merely a 'scrap of paper.' In the 35-page answer ad cautelam (with caution) submitted by Duterte's camp to the Senate impeachment court on Monday, the Vice President argued that the fourth impeachment complaint must be dismissed for being illegal, saying that it violated the one-year bar rule under the 1987 Constitution. The House of Representatives prosecution panel, in response, asked the Senate impeachment court to reject Duterte's bid to dismiss the impeachment case against her, saying the severity of the charges requires no less than a full and transparent trial and her conviction. Should the Senate impeachment court rule in favor of the Vice President's appeal, Bucoy said the House prosecution would file before the Supreme Court a 'petition for certiorari with mandamus, questioning the exercise of abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.' ''Yun lang ang puwede namin i-akyat eh, 'yung grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction… mandamus for the [Supreme] Court to compel the [Senate] court to try it,' he said. (That's all we can do. The grave abuse of discretion amounts to a lack of jurisdiction… mandamus for the Supreme Court to compel the Senate court to proceed with the trial.) 'The only thing the SC can do is either reverse or modify 'yung kanilang decision,' he added. (The SC can either reverse or modify the decision.) Motion Senate President Francis Escudero on Wednesday said that the Senate impeachment court may vote on the motion to dismiss the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte if a senator-judge makes such a submission. 'Wala namang bawal na motion... Asan ba 'yung provision sa Saligang Batas o sa Rules on Impeachment na bawal ang ganito o ganyang klaseng motion? Hindi mo namang pwedeng pigilan,' Escudero said in a press conference. (There is no prohibited motion. Where is the law, constitutional provision, or Rules of Impeachment that a certain motion is prohibited? You cannot stop someone from making a motion.) Senator Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa had moved in the plenary for the dismissal of the Articles of Impeachment, but his motion was eventually amended so that the complaint be returned to the House of Representatives pending a couple of certifications. 'Constitutional crisis' Bucoy, meanwhile, warned that it would become a 'constitutional crisis' if the Senate refuses to follow what the Supreme Court's decision would be. 'There will be a constitutional crisis kung nag utos ang SC at ayaw sumunod then we have a crisis, pero I doubt kung hindi sila susunod," he said. This, as Bucoy stressed the importance of proceeding with the trial. 'Para sa amin, mahalaga na magkaroon ng paglilitis, kahit na i-acquit niyo yan, basta naipakita namin sa bayan ang mga ebidensya namin sa lahat ng krimen na ginawa niya,' he said. (For us, it is important to have a trial, even if you acquit her, as long as we have shown the people our evidence for all the crimes she committed.) 'Bayan na ang maghuhusga sa inyo. Pero babalikan ko ulit, nagtitiwala pa rin kami sa proseso dahil ito haka-haka pa rin. Malalaman natin sa susunod na mga araw kung tama ang ating pag agam-agam,' he added. (Let the people be the judge. Again, we still trust the process because this is still speculation. We will know in the coming days if our doubts are correct.) Duterte is accused of betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and other high crimes mainly over alleged misuse of P612.5 million worth of confidential funds and for threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., his wife Liza and his Speaker Martin Romualdez of Leyte, among others. The Vice President has denied the allegations. Bucoy also said that the House prosecution team has not yet discussed whether it will file a motion for inhibition against senator-judges who have expressed biases in the case. 'I think there's growing opinion… it's gaining ground na 'wag na lang.' Malilihis na naman eh. Pangalawa, it will only compound our numbers issues,' he said. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- GMA Network
US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges
US President Donald Trump attends the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., April 21, 2025. REUTERS/ Leah Millis/ File photo WASHINGTON, United States — US President Donald Trump hailed a "giant win" Friday after the Supreme Court curbed lone judges from blocking the Republican's raft of controversial policies. The 6-3 ruling, with the court's liberal justices all dissenting, stemmed from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. The court said individual district judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions, which have also blocked a string of Trump's hardline policies on immigration, diversity and firing federal employees. "The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," 79-year-old Trump told a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books at public schools. Critics say the move threatens secular education by opening the door to religious objections. 'Step toward authoritarianism' The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump—or future US presidents. The Supreme Court's majority decision was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by district court judges around the country—both Democratic and Republican appointees—since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. 'Lawless actions' Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda. But such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. — Agence France-Presse
