In the aftermath of the testimony of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on the alleged 82 dollar accounts of Chief Justice Renato Corona, certain senators expressed apprehensions over her so-called “unbridled” investigative powers. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, herself a former trial judge, pointed out that the powers of the Ombudsman were merely copied from Article 11, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution, which, she said, appear “very plenary, infinite and wide-ranging.” In contrast, laws such as the Foreign Currency Deposits Act and the one creating the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) provide measures to ensure against abuses, the senator said. The AMLC law, for example, provides that dollar accounts can only be disclosed if authorized by the depositor or upon order of a court.
When Morales wryly replied that the Ombudsman Act of 1989 allows her to request assistance from agencies such as the AMLC “in connection with the discharge of my mandate,” Santiago declared: “Your position would logically lead to the conclusion that the bank accounts of any public officer can be opened on mere request by the Ombudsman without any court order. But under the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman has no disciplinary authority over impeachable officials, members of Congress and the judiciary.” When Morales reiterated that her mandate was to go after grafters and seek the assistance of other agencies in the fight against corruption, the senator from Iloilo shot back: “But you’re fudging the issue… You’re debating with a senator-judge.”
It seems that Santiago doth protest too much. She herself said that the Ombudsman had no authority over impeachable officials. Moreover, whatever excesses an Ombudsman may commit are necessarily checked by the 1989 law itself as well as other relevant laws. In addition, Morales, although a hostile witness, had appeared at the impeachment trial on the request of the defense for the impeachment court to summon her.
But other senators seemed to share Santiago’s concern, and proceeded to belabor the matter. Sen. Pia Cayetano called on her colleagues to discuss how they should appreciate the Ombudsman’s testimony, and issued the reminder that whatever precedent was set in the Corona trial would serve as a template for future such proceedings. The view was echoed by Sen. Gregorio Honasan, who worried about the potential infringement of basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano observed that the Ombudsman seemed to have set up “a protocol” and “standard operating procedure” in which the AMLC could be used to provide information to aid graft complaints even without a court order.
Those are hasty generalizations. It should be pointed out that Morales’ testimony using the AMLC report tracing Corona’s purported bank accounts was made in connection with the Chief Justice’s own defense against charges that he had misdeclared his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and thus betrayed public trust (the article of impeachment against him). The same SALNs carried a declaration authorizing “the Ombudsman or his representative to obtain and secure from all appropriate government agencies, including the Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents that may show my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and financial connections.” As Morales explained, the declaration was “blanket authority” justifying her office’s investigation of Corona and why it tapped the AMLC in the inquiry.
Still, the senators were chary of the potential for the abuse of the Ombudsman’s powers. According to Honasan, impeachment is inherently a political process, and for the Ombudsman to add her two cents’ worth against Corona during the trial may add to the impression that all means are being employed against him by what Sen. Jinggoy Estrada described as a “vengeful administration.” Said Honasan: “I would like to have the peace of mind that the Chief Justice is not being singled out here.”
The observations spoke of the senators’ fear that the impeachment trial is being set as a precedent for the Ombudsman to go after them. The fear is misplaced; it’s a paranoia that is irrational and baseless. In devoting much time interrogating Morales on the powers of the Ombudsman, the senators deflected attention from the fundamental issue facing the impeachment court and betrayed a strange persecution complex. It’s not about you, your honors. It’s about grafters and bringing them to justice.