After the Ombuds resignation, what next?

With neither any trace of a blush or losing face, nor even a whimper of discomfiture, the wily lady Ombudsman – sounds oxymoronic – Merceditas Gutierrez had called it quits, but insists on lily white innocence.

  To keen observers, the stratagem of Gutierrez wasn’t altogether lost, that is, she had not raised a white flag in surrender as most naively assumed; rather, the last ditch tactic in reverse of stemming the converging forces of impeachment, when all else in defense could no longer tide over its inevitability. Like the now classic delaying actions in Bataan for Gen. MacArthur to buy time to harness counter-moves against the Japanese juggernaut, Ombudsman Gutierrez’ prior defensive tactics were just dilatory ploys to hold off the impeachment.

  The lady lawyer knew, of course, that the worst scenario in impeachment is removal from office, nothing else. She thus manipulated the events to force the government’s hands, enabling her to buy much longer time to prepare for the Lower House articles of impeachment. The State’s theory and collated evidence had to be exposed; hence, she had ample knowledge and preparation should the State later indict her in court.

  No less than the President, some senators and cabinet members had urged on Gutierrez to resign to save the country from further bellicose confrontations incidental to impeachment. While many also opined that she was on advice of former resident Gloria Arroyo not to resign, the likelihood was her initial decision not to resign was of her own volition.

  Anyhow, with the administration’s doggedness to pursue impeachment and capped by the articles of impeachment of the Lower House, the admin theory and the collated evidence, or enough of it, already clear to her, Gutierrez as premeditated obviously, made her sudden turn.

  Had she not resigned eventually and the impeachment went on, Gutierrez knew what the verdict would be based on political predilections of the Senate. In short, the determinative factor is on political numbers which she felt she could not muster, unlike, in criminal cases – if there be any filed – wherein the vital factor is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And so, to obviate further expenses, hassle, and further mental and psychological trauma with no possible acquittal, Gutierrez had anticipated her ultimate fate in impeachment. Therefore, the wily lady tendered her resignation as the better, though bitter, option.

  See, no harm done to her, except when the State would ever pursue the ballyhooed plan to sue her in court. But that is yet another ballgame where she surely feels having better chances.

  Indeed, even based on the Lower House articles of impeachment for betrayal of public trust with several specific causes of action, say, the ZTE/NDN almost done deal, the P728 M fertilizer scam, the Euro-general and “pabaon” gigantic scam in the AFP, the very poor performance in prosecuting cases and its snail-paced action are now too familiar for Gutierrez to counter later in court.

  What now angers the nation involving Gutierrez as Ombudsman, the prosecutors of the DOJ, and the Sandiganbayan trying the General Carlos Garcia, is the recent final resolution of the court approving the plea bargaining agreement to plead guilty to the lower offense of direct bribery which is bailable; further, for Garcia to return P135 M out of the malversed P303 M, and be free from the graver crime of plunder; and, that in so approving the questionable plea bargaining agreement, the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the State’s motion for reconsideration as very “weak” to overturn the court’s original resolution.

 The nettlesome question is: In plea bargaining for a lower offense, the aggrieved party and counsel must express and sign their approval. In the Garcia case, who signed for the people of the Philippines – the aggrieved in criminal cases – as basis for the Court to approve it? Or did the Ombudsman, together with the DOJ prosecutors, assume responsibility to stand for the State? And, given such fatal flaw, why did the Sandiganbayan so affirm finally the defective plea bargaining agreement to the utter detriment of the State? Why didn’t the Court require the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the people or the state and comment on the highly questionable deal?