Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales will
dig her own grave before the Senate
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
ACTION.
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 Corona
was based on complaints filed by several people.
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 Corona ’s alleged dollar accounts.
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 Corona ’s supposed $10
million.
Question” What basis is Morales talking
about?
Morales cited the Ombudsman Law as her
authority in investigating Corona . But the March 2, 2010 SC ruling also provided
that: “Only after removal can they (justices) be criminally
proceeded against for their transgressions.”
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 Corona .
If she can’t produce any, Morales will
have to reveal her reasons for going after Corona for his supposed $10 million.
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!
LETTY ARCILLA
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.