But is there a speed rule for Ombudsman?

PALACE KIBITZING: It is a matter of opinion, but I think Malacañang should refrain from cheering on the impeachment process initiated against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, an independent official with the rank of chairman of a Constitutional Commission.

With due respect, there is no need for the Office of the President to show unusual interest to the extent of stepping on the boundaries encircling independent constitutional bodies.

The House of Representatives, part of the co-equal legislative branch and the proper body to initiate impeachment, is already on top of the case. The allies of President Noynoy Aquino in the House, who are in the majority anyway, know what to do.

Besides, judging from the drift of the proceedings in the House committee on justice, it appears that Gutierrez’s goose is cooked, more or less. No need for kibitzing from the Palace.

* * *

NO STANDARD: We taxpayers longing for prompt action on public concerns and the swift rectification of injustice support efforts to punish officials who fall on their jobs, obstruct justice or engage in selective prosecution.

On the impeachment cases against Gutierrez, the key accusation is that she has been sitting on complaints, especially when the respondents are persons identified with former President Gloria Arroyo who had appointed her.

There was mention of her “low conviction rate.” But is there a clear measurable standard of how many convictions out of, say, 100 cases must the Ombudsman score to be deemed performing satisfactorily?

Is there a rule on how fast (in how many days, months or years) should the Ombudsman investigate a complaint and file charges — so we can judge if she is fast or slow?

If there is no clear measurable standard, rating the Ombudsman’s performance becomes a mere matter of opinion or a political game of numbers — not a fair basis for impeachment.

* * *

NO EXEMPTIONS: On a related issue, the Supreme Court has set deadlines for lower courts to dispose of motions and resolve cases pending before them.

Sometimes the deadlines are met, sometimes not. Sometimes disciplinary action is taken against laggard judges, sometimes not.

If we want a consistent standard for speedy justice, why do we not impose the same or comparable rule on even the Supreme Court — on how fast it should resolve cases?

The High Court should not be exempt from deadlines. When SC justices prove to be slow, like the Ombudsman, will that be enough reason to file impeachment complaints against them?

* * *

SC FLIP-FLOP: The possibility of impeaching SC justices who sit on cases is apart from another impeachment threat arising from the High Court’s flip-flopping on issues already resolved with finality.

The latest SC somersault came last Feb. 17 when it reversed (again) its previous ruling on the conversion of certain 16 municipalities into cities. If my count is right, it was the third time the tribunal reversed its final verdict on the matter.

In November 2008, the SC declared as unconstitutional the laws granting cityhood to the 16 towns. But it reversed itself in December 2009. Then in August 2010, the SC again declared them illegal. In its latest decision, however, it upheld their constitutionality.

Its latest 180-degree turn on a supposedly final and executory decision was made after SC magistrates reportedly received “secret letters” from former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, now the lawyer of the 16 towns.

* * *

SECRET LETTERS: Reacting to our Postscript of Feb. 28, lawyer Joseph Marigomen of the League of Cities of the Philippines (opposing the conversion of the 16 towns) told us in an email:

“The ‘secret letters’ were sent on the letterhead of Atty. Estelito Mendoza in two versions, one signed by him and the other signed by politicians from the 16 cities, such as Reps. Almario and Cari, et al.

“These were never furnished to me as LCP counsel in the SC case, contrary to the mandatory rule in court that all motions (i.e., pleas, requests, etc., addressed to the court) should also be sent to the opposing party’s counsel, in the interest of due process and fair play.

“We learned about the letters only belatedly, when one of the addressees (presumably a SC justice) made us comment on the letters… The letters were received by the SC on Jan. 19, 2009, long before there was a deadlocked 6-6 vote, which happened only four months later, in April 2009.

“In January 2009, the 16 municipalities had just lost the case by a 6-5 vote, and were eagerly courting the votes of the abstainers in the case, i.e., Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justice Ed Antonio Nachura. It is of public knowledge that Chief Justice Puno was for a long time the Assistant Solicitor General and kababayan of Atty. Mendoza, and that Justice Nachura, a native of Catbalogan (one of the 16 municipalities), was in fact a sponsor of the cityhood bill of Catbalogan when he was its representative in the 11th Congress.

“A 6-5 vote, as of January 2009, could easily be swung the other way considering that the two justices would most likely vote in favor of the 16 municipalities. To their credit, they abstained from voting throughout the case in its various incarnations brought about by the earnest efforts of the 16 municipalities, who even resurrected the case even after it had become final, executory, and implemented. The two justices resisted all efforts by the 16 municipalities to court their votes, in a supreme act of delicadeza.

“Why the two letters were sent surreptitiously to the SC justices, shortly after Atty. Mendoza became the counsel of the 16 municipalities, remains a mystery.”

* * *

FOLLOWUP: Read past POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Or Like POSTSCRIPT on facebook.com/manilamail. E-mail feedback to [email protected]