Selective

Yet another controversial Aquino-era appointee could find herself on the impeachment block when Congress resumes session early next year.

A number of respected citizens representing several advocacy groups filed an impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. The complaint has yet to be endorsed by a sitting member of the House of Representatives. The complainants, however, seem confident they will get an endorsement as soon as the congressmen find the opportunity to read through the complaint.

Once an endorser has been found, Morales could be the subject of public hearings by the House justice committee such as we have seen in the impeachment case involving Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno. The original complaint against Sereno appears to gather strength as the hearings wear on.

Two sitting associate justices of the Supreme Court, a retired justice and the Court administrator have offered testimonies before the House hearings. According to the main complainant, four or even five more associate justices could testify next month, when the hearings resume. That signals that a majority of the High Court would not be dismayed to see the Chief Justice impeached.

Aquino appointed Sereno Chief Justice despite her lack of seniority and any experience at the bench. That, by itself, is a slight on the sitting magistrates. From the testimonies we have heard, the original misgivings appear to have been compounded by disregard of processes and imperious behavior in a Court where collegiality is a precious commodity.

Carpio-Morales’ road to where she now sits is no less controversial. After he won the presidency in 2010, Benigno Aquino III broke tradition by not choosing then Chief Justice Renato Corona to administer his oath of office. Instead, he asked then associate justice Carpio-Morales to perform that role.

Aquino III then hounded the sitting Ombudman until she resigned her post. He then appointed Carpio-Morales Ombudsman after she retired from the Supreme Court.

There is no question about seniority in this case. But a lot of questions have been raised about her impartiality in cases that might (or should) involve Aquino III.

Most notably, Carpio-Morales excluded Aquino III from the many cases involving the controversial disbursement acceleration program (DAP). Instead, the Ombudsman allowed only minor cases to be filed against Aquino’s budget secretary Butch Abad in a case declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court no less and involved the diversion of billions of pesos in public funds.

Last year, Carpio-Morales pronounced Aquino III “corrupt-free.” That sounded like blanket exculpation against the evidence. The relatives of the 44 dead SAF troopers were not happy with the way their complaints against the former president were so casually set aside. Today, there is increasing likelihood more cases might be filed against Aquino – especially relating to the controversial (and hasty) purchase of anti-dengue vaccines.

When Aquino was president, Carpio-Morales appeared happy to quickly bring half-baked cases to court against personalities critical of the sitting president. Now that Aquino is no longer president, Carpio-Morales appears to play the role of loyal protector shielding the man from charges filed against him.

The sitting Ombudsman gained notoriety when she testified in the Senate trial of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. In that testimony, Carpio-Morales added up all of Corona’s bank transactions, both debits and credits, to produce an astounding amount. That was unforgivable misrepresentation of the facts. It was the icing on the cake of a propaganda-driven campaign to oust Corona. 

The propensity to misrepresent transactions appears to have taken hold in the corporate culture at the Ombudsman’s office.

A few months ago, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman Horacio Carandang claimed in an interview attributed billions to the bank account of one Rodrigo Roa Duterte. He claimed the numbers were bank transactions supplied by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The AMLC quickly and explicitly denied their office supplied the Ombudsman with any record of banking transactions.

As Carpio-Morales did during the Corona trial, Carandang added up all the transactions in the banking records he claimed came from the AMLC. The Ombudsman did not reverse Carandang’s statements, the AMLC’s disclaimer notwithstanding.

In the case of former MRT-3 general manager Al Vitangcol, the Ombudsman singled out the lower ranking former official for prosecution while excluding Mar Roxas and Jun Abaya – the two Cabinet officials who actually signed the flawed maintenance contracts for the decrepit rail service.

The Ombudsman failed to recuse herself from the SALN cases (Dino v. Salceda) despite the fact that her brother Lucas Carpio served as counsel for the respondent. The case was dismissed.

In the case of Negros Oriental Gov. Roel Degamo, the Ombudsman ruled to remove the official from office twice and was twice rejected by the Court of Appeals. Here the Ombudsman insisted on applying the condonation doctrine retroactively despite a clear Supreme Court ruling that this doctrine must be prospectively applied.

In these and many other cases cited in the impeachment complaint, Carpio-Morales is accused of failing the test of cold neutrality the office demands. She undermines the integrity of the vital office she occupies.

In sum, the voluminous complaint against Carpio-Morales charges she practices selective justice as well as selective prosecution in many of her actions. This is a complaint that deserves a serious read.

Some might argue that it is uneconomic to impeach Carpio-Morales so close to her retirement date. In a few months, she will vacate her post anyway.

The counter-argument here is that failing to impeach the sitting Ombudsman even as her time left in office is short will mean sweeping under the rug all the injustices enumerated in the complaint.