Ombudsman junks motion to place GMA under investigation on ZTE

MANILA, Philippines – Citing presidential immunity from suit, the Office of the Ombudsman panel conducting a parallel investigation into the controversial national broadband network (NBN) deal with China’s ZTE Corp. denied the motion of a lawyer to subpoena President Arroyo.

Investigative panel chairman Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III announced during the hearing yesterday that the panel had denied two motions filed by lawyer Harry Roque.

The first motion is to subpoena the President, a respondent in Roque’s complaint, while the other motion is to subpoena broadcast journalist Joe Taruc and get a copy of the transcript of his radio interview with Mrs. Arroyo, where she reportedly admitted she had knowledge about alleged irregularities attending the ZTE deal.

When he was told that his motions were denied, Roque asked to be dismissed from the hearing held at the CCB Conference Room at the Ombudsman’s Office in Quezon City.

“My denial is very material because our complaint against our primary respondent has been dismissed on what I think and believe to be based on flawed legal grounds. That is why I would like now time to prepare for my legal challenge against the order of this panel,” said Roque.

Roque’s request was granted, but he said he would never return to the Ombudsman’s hearing on the ZTE case due to his disgust over the decision.

Before leaving, Roque told reporters that his only recourse now is to go to the Supreme Court and file a certiorari, to ask the High Court to order the Ombudsman to reverse its decision denying his motions and ordering them to subpoena Mrs. Arroyo and Taruc.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Lorelei Fajardo, however, said that the decision of the Ombudsman was merely a demonstration of the principle of a sitting president being immune from suit.

“As a matter of fact we all know that any sitting president is immune from any lawsuit,” Fajardo said, adding that though this immunity was removed from the 1987 Constitution, the basis is found in jurisprudence which is treated as law in the country.

The other deputy presidential spokesperson, Anthony Golez, explained that the President’s immunity from lawsuits makes sense because without this, the President would likely be subjected to cases on a daily basis.

“We’ve been saying that we have to respect our institutions. We have to respect the Ombudsman. So what Harry Roque and his group did to walk out only because they didn’t like the decision, I think it’s unbecoming,” Fajardo said.

Meantime, complainant and lawyer Ernesto Francisco Jr. had a heated argument with Gonzales when the former accused the latter of “lying.”

In retaliation, Gonzales accused Francisco of showing “disrespect” to the Ombudsman panel for calling him and his panel members “liars.”

“I am not a liar! We are not liars! Take that back!” Gonzales shouted at Francisco during the hearing.

In his “Urgent Omnibus Motion” filed earlier, Francisco said Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Gonzales and the other panel members lied during the hearing.

“The lies and misrepresentations started with Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez claiming in her opening statement during the 18 February 2008 hearing wherein she announced her supposed inhibition,” the motion read.

Francisco also insisted that the panel headed by Gonzales should be disbanded and replaced.

The tension prompted the Ombudsman panel to suspend the hearing for a few minutes.

The inquiry resumed after Francisco apologized to the panel and Gonzales accepted his apology.

Francisco also withdrew his motion to disband the investigating panel.

The Ombudsman panel assured Francisco that they would ask the Senate, which is also conducting an investigation of the ZTE scandal, to provide them with all the records on the inquiry.

When the tension subsided, the panel gave Francisco 10 days to submit a formal complaint-affidavit because what he had submitted was only a letter of complaint.

Before adjourning the hearing, the panel announced that they would be waiting for the copies of the Senate records so that lawyers of both parties would be able to study these before submitting any more pleadings before the Ombudsman panel.

They also gave the lawyers of both parties 10 days for their respective counter affidavits and replies.

No date has been set for the next hearing pending delivery of the Senate records to the Ombudsman’s Office.  -With Marvin Sy