Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales will dig her own grave before the
Impeachment Court if she fails to justify why she
had ordered Chief Justice Renato Corona to explain $10 million in allegedly
undeclared bank deposits despite a Supreme Court (SC) decision CONTRARY TO HER
A decision SHE HAD CONCURRED TO AND SIGNED as an associate justice of the SC.
The Philippine Star has reported that on March 2, 2010, the SC ruled that: “If a complaint against an impeachable officer is unwarranted for lack of legal basis and for clear misapplication of law and jurisprudence, the Ombudsman should spare these officers from the harassment of an unjustified investigation.”
As we all know, Morales is set to testify in the impeachment court this week.
Remember, guys, Morales had said her order to
was based on complaints filed by several people. Corona
But four of the complainants – Akbayan party-list Rep. Walden Bello, former Rep. Risa Hontiveros, Emmanuel Tiu Santos, and Harvey Keh – HAVE DENIED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the $10 million cited by Morales.
They said they never specified $10 million in their respective complaints.
Morales had said in several media reports that there is basis for a probe into
’s alleged dollar accounts. Corona
But Hontiveros has admitted that she had based her complaints only on evidence presented by the prosecution in the impeachment court. Keh has admitted HE CANNOT AUTHENTICATE ANY DOCUMENT on
’s supposed $10
Question” What basis is Morales talking about?
Morales cited the Ombudsman Law as her authority in investigating
. But the March 2, 2010 SC ruling also provided
that: “Only after removal can they (justices) be criminally
proceeded against for their transgressions.” Corona
This is where it gets interesting.
If Morales will say that she simply had forgotten about the 2010 ruling, it will cast alarming doubts on her mental competence to continue as Ombudsman. I bet you, this she will reject to high heavens.
If she will say she’s fully aware of the ruling, she would have to show proof that the same had been NULLIFIED by succeeding SC decisions.
Plus any law or accepted legal doctrine saying that lack of personal knowledge and newspaper clippings are enough basis for an investigation of an incumbent impeachable official like
If she can’t produce any, Morales will have to reveal her reasons for going after
for his supposed $10 million. Corona
If she’ll cite personal grudge (which I’m sure she won’t), that will make her a BIASED ombudsman and thus ethically unfit for the position. The only other possible reason would be she was ordered by to do so.
Which leads to the next question: BY WHOM?
As an old saying in poker goes, boys and girls, CHOOSE YOUR WILD!
***From our friends:
HOW TO TELL IF A SENATOR-JUDGE IS FAIR!
Sa pagkakabasa ko po dito sa inyong sinulat Sir Boyet, lahat lahat po ng mga nangyari, nasabi, nagawa before and during the trial ay lihis na lihis sa tamang paraan. Kung susundin po ang linya ng inyong sinulat, umpisa pa lang ay di na ito dapat na nangyari. Una pa lang ay di na ito kinuha/inaccept ng Senado dahil MALING MALI NA. Ang parati na lang palusot ng mga nagaakusa, kakampi ng nagaakusa, nabayaran ng nagaakusa na itong impeachment trial ay isang SPECIAL trial. ONLY IN THE
HOW TO AVOID BEING RAPED!
LUZ IMELDA MACARAEG of Moncada, Tarlac
Thanks for sharing. Women of character and decency observe the proprieties in dress and behavior.
Post a Comment
EVERYBODY IS WELCOME TO EXPRESS THEIR OWN OPINION ON THE ISSUE. But we discourage use of FOUL words.
Please be reminded that this blog is under COMMENT MODERATION, all comments will be reviewed before publishing. We have the right to reject any insolent comment.