Supreme Court sets oral arguments on Ombudsman's petition

MANILA, Philippines – The petition of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez questioning the impeachment proceedings against her at the House of Representatives has been set for oral arguments before the Supreme Court (SC) on Sept. 30 at 2 p.m.

SC spokesman and court administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the case was set for oral arguments even if it does not involve national interest because the SC sees the urgency of resolving it immediately.

“A case need not be national in scope or involve national interest to be set for oral argument,” he said. “The Court has the discretion to set cases for oral arguments.”

The SC issued a resolution yesterday ordering the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to submit its comment on the petition of Gutierrez within a non-extendable period of five days from receipt of notice, Marquez said.

Last Sept. 14, the SC stopped the impeachment proceedings against Gutierrez.

Marquez said the SC wants to know the government’s stand on the legal debate between the House and Gutierrez.

Solicitor General Joel Cadiz told the SC his office would look into the case.

However, the OSG would no longer represent Gutierrez because she already hired a private lawyer, retired SC Justice Serafin Cuevas, he added.

Gutierrez said the move of the House committee on justice to officially start her impeachment violated the one-year ban on impeachment proceedings under the Constitution.

The Constitution states that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

Gutierrez also accused the House of violating her constitutional right to due process since the impeachment was done in “indecent and precipitate haste.”

“Thus, it contravenes the Constitution and violates petitioner Ombudsman’s cardinal and primary right to due process, thereby tainting the hearing conducted before the Committee on Sept. 1, 2010 in relation to the sufficiency in form of the two impeachment complaints with illegality and nullity,” Gutierrez said.