Ombudsman: We're not grabbing Congress' power to impeach
'We are not grabbing the power of Congress to impeach an impeachable officer, no. Neither are we trying to supplant the findings of the House of Representatives," he said.
Martires said that according to their rules, they should treat committee reports submitted to his office as a complaint.
'We do not treat it as a paper weight or a scratch paper,' he said.
On June 19, the Ombudsman acted on the committee report and asked Duterte to file her counter-affidavit to the alleged misuse of confidential funds of the Department of Education and the Office of the Vice President.
Duterte filed her counter-affidavit at the Ombudsman on Friday, June 27, 2025.
The House of Representatives had submitted a committee report on June 16, alleging plunder, technical malversation, falsification, use of falsified documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, and betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.
Also named as respondents were Edward Fajarda and Gina Acosta, Special Disbursing Officers; Asst. Secretary Atty. Sunshine Charry Fajarda, Director for Strategic Management Office; retired Maj. Gen. Nolasco Mempin, Undersecretary for Administration; and Annalyn Sevilla, Undersecretary for Finance Service. All are from the Department of Education.
Those charged from the Office of the Vice President were Atty. Zuleika Lopez, Undersecretary and Chief of Staff; Lemuel Ortonio, Asst. Chief of Staff; Lt. Col. Dennis Nolasco, Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group; and Col. Raymund Dante Lachia, Commander of Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group of the Philippine Army.
Martires said that his office is merely investigating the complaint and would wait for the impeachment trial to finish to determine whether any criminal charges may be filed against Duterte if and when the impeachment court convicts her.
'What we have right now is the power to investigate but not to prosecute. The Ombudsman or any investigating body has to await the result of the impeachment proceeding. But if the Vice President is acquitted by the impeachment court, wala kaming power to charge her,' he said.
He added that the investigation may take longer than the trial, saying it may be up to the next Ombudsman to tackle the issue.
'Medyo matagal-tagal pa ito. 'Yun ang mahirap sa mga taong nerbiyoso. 'Yun ang mahirap sa mga taong hindi nag-aral. We are not dismissing anything. What is there to dismiss when our only power is to investigate,' he said.
Martires is due to retire on July 27 after serving as Ombudsman for seven years.
He was appointed by former President Rodrigo Duterte first as associate justice of the Supreme Court and later on as Ombudsman.
Martires denied he acted on the House committee report to pre-empt the impeachment court to favor the younger Duterte.
'Mula nang ako'y in-appoint ni Digong (former President Duterte) sa Supreme Court hanggang sa Ombudsman, ni minsan ay hindi nakiusap sa akin si Digong,' he said. —LDF, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
29 minutes ago
- GMA Network
Politicians involved in anomalous flood control projects to be named — Erwin, Jinggoy
Senators Erwin Tulfo and Jinggoy Estrada said Wednesday that politicians who are linked to anomalous flood control projects will be identified in the hearings of the powerful Senate blue ribbon committee. Tulfo, vice chairperson of the panel, said that not only members of the House of Representatives will be named in the next hearings to come, but also local government officials who have had a hand in suspicious flood control projects. 'Yung mga contractor na 'yan, connected 'yan sa mga pulitiko na 'yan. Hindi lang congressman dito, mayroon ding mga governor diyan, may mga mayor din na sasabit diyan na sila mismo ang tumitira ng flood control pagbaba ng pondo sa kanilang lalawigan, sa kanilang probinsya. Sila na ang tumitira,' Tulfo said in a Super Radyo dzBB interview. (These contractors are connected to politicians. It's not just congressmen, but also governors and mayors who are behind the flood control projects who will be tagged.) ''Yung iba naman na mga mayor, mga contractor. Sila na rin ang gumagawa ng mga flood control. At kahit hindi sa bayan nila, kahit sa ibang bayan, pupunta ang kanyang kumpanya para gawin ang flood control na 'yan,' he added. (Some mayors are the contractors themselves. They also do flood control as a business. They will work on something not just in their own towns, but in other towns as well.) Tulfo said that private contractors will be pressed in order for them to divulge who are the politicians they are working with. If they fail to cooperate with the blue ribbon committee, the senator warned that these contractors may be cited in contempt. During the committee's initial public hearing on Tuesday, chairperson Senator Rodante Marcoleta approved a motion for the issuance of subpoenas against private contractors that were absent. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Manuel Bonoan also revealed in the hearing that there may be "ghost" flood control projects worth P5.9 billion that mar some areas in Bulacan. Parliamentary courtesy Estrada, meanwhile, explained that the Senate will not urge fellow lawmakers—particularly those from the lower chamber—to attend the hearings of the blue ribbon committee, but they may voluntarily do so if they want. 'Pwede naman sabihin ng contractor kung sino 'yung mga binibigyan nilang pulitiko,' the Senate President Pro Tempore said in a separate dzBB interview. (The contractor can identify the politicians they are giving money to.) 'Siguro kung merong maglalakas loob na pangalanan 'yung mambabatas na 'yun, siguro sasagutin nila in a proper forum,' he added. (If someone dares to name lawmakers, maybe these politicians can answer in a proper forum.) — RSJ, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
13 hours ago
- GMA Network
Civil society groups want more active role in budget process
The House of Representatives begins its scrutiny of the proposed P6.793-trillion national budget for 2026 on August 18, 2025. Photo: House of Representatives Civil society organizations (CSOs) are calling for a more active participation in the budget process. Last month House leaders said CSOs—defined by the UN as non-profit, voluntary citizens' groups organized on a local, national or international level, driven by people with a common interest, such as non-government organizations—would be allowed at the deliberations on the national budget, from the committee and plenary level to the bicameral conference committee, with one saying that their presence would not be "token participation." On Tuesday, CSOs stressed this point. "What we had po in mind was really genuine participation. Yung hindi lang po dekorasyon or hindi lang token, hindi lang observer kumbaga. Ang prinopose po talaga namin ay may role po ang civil societies na magbigay ng inputs, magbigay ng feedback doon sa budget process," People's Budget Coalition advisor Adolfo Jose Montesa said in an online interview. (What we had in mind was really genuine participation. Not just being there as decoration or as tokens, not just as observers. What we proposed is a role for civil societies to give input and feedback on the budget process.) "Gusto po sana namin ay posibleng maging resource persons sa mga committee hearings, posibleng mag-submit ng position papers, at makarinig ng feedback mula sa committee chairs, " Montesa added. (We would like to be resource persons at committee hearings, possibly submit position papers, and hear feedback from the committee chairs.) Social Watch Philippines agrees. "Yung sinasabi namin na magiging resource person, yun po ay during the budget deliberations sa committee level," the group's senior budget specialist Alice Quitalig said (When we say being resource persons, we mean during the budget deliberations at the committee level.) According to a memorandum circular issued by House Secretary General Reginald Velasco, CSOs accredited to take part in the budget process are allowed to "observe budget deliberations both at the Committee and Plenary levels, access budget briefing documents/materials presented during the Committee and Plenary deliberations, submit written position papers or recommendations within specified deadlines, present consolidated sectoral positions during designated stages of the process." 'Opportunity to speak' CSOs were acknowledged at the opening of the budget deliberations at the session hall of the House of Representatives on Monday morning. But when the deliberations were transferred to the Romualdez Hall in the afternoon, Akbayan Party-list Representative Perci Cendaña noted their absence. The CSOs were allowed to enter afterwards. "Doon sa nakita natin na initial na implementation kahapon, bitin na bitin tayo in terms of genuine transparency and participation," he said in an online interview. "Ang mangyari, baka benchwarmer sila." (From what we saw in the initial implementation yesterday, we were left wanting in terms of genuine transparency and participation. They might end up just being benchwarmers.) Cendaña wants the current guidelines improved. "Dapat meron silang opportunity to speak during the budget process. Kasi doon sa current guidelines, lumalabas na parang sila ay magsa-submit lamang na kanilang mga position papers at wala ngang malinaw na proseso kung paano i-consider yung mga position papers na yan," he said. (They should be given the opportunity to speak during the budget process. In the current guidelines, it looks like they can only submit position papers and there is no clear process on how these papers will be considered.) Asking questions CSOs also want to be involved in the budget process at the bicameral conference committee level. "Ang panawagan namin diyan ay open bicameral conference committee. Ibig sabihin po, kami po ay maiimbitahan sa lahat ng sessions ng bicameral conference committee," Quitalig said. "Siyempre, kailangan meron din yang transcript ng meeting. And hopefully, kahit kami rin, gusto namin meron ding annotation ng legislators' amendment. Yun po yung transparency part," she added. (Our request is an open bicameral conference committee. What we mean is that we are also invited to all the sessions of the bicameral conference committee. And we must have a transcript of the meeting and annotations of the legislators' amendments. That would be the transparency part.) One workaround suggested by the CSOs is to request members of the House Committee on Appropriations to ask questions for them. "Well, pupuwede na habang hindi pa napaplantsa nang maayos itong proseso, ang pwedeng stopgap measure natin ay mag-yield kami bilang mga members of the House ng aming time para makapagtatanong yung mga civil society organizations o kaya naman padaanin sa amin yung kanilang mga tanong. So that is workable. Pero sa dulo, ang gusto natin ay institutional reform. Kasi pagka ganyan, parang depende na naman doon sa whims ng representative kung iyi-yield ba niya o hindi, na para bang utang na loob pa nila na binigay sa kanila yung oras," Cendaña said. (Well, while the process has still not been ironed out, a stopgap measure could be for us to yield our time so that the CSOs can ask questions, or ask the questions through us. That is workable. But in the end, wheat we want is institutional reform. Because if the CSOs have to depend on the whims of the representative on whether they would yield their time or not, it would come off as they would be owed a debt of gratitude for giving them the time.) People's review CSOs also want a longer period to conduct a People's Budget Review. Appropriations Committee Chair Mika Suansing of Nueva Ecija earlier said CSOs would be given one day for this. "We should organize, we will organize a People's Budget Review pero hindi lang dapat siya naka-encapsulate sa one day. Kasi ang daming concerns ng different sectors. Nandiyan yung health, education, environment, transportation. So baka magkulang ang isang araw. We need to allocate more time and space para discuss lahat ng issues na ito," Montesa said. (We should organize, we will organize a People's Budget Review, but it should not be encapsulated in just one day. There are so many concerns from different sectors: health, education, environment, transportation. One day might not be enough. We need to allocate more time and space to discuss all these issues.) "One day will not be enough. It has to be a constant presence. Yung civil society organizations have to be a constant presence in the whole budget process para tiyakin na transparent talaga ito [to ensure that this process is actually transparent]," Cendaña concurred. — BM, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
15 hours ago
- GMA Network
VP Sara asks SC to dismiss House appeal on impeachment complaint
Vice President Sara Duterte has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the House of Representatives' (HOR) appeal on its ruling that declared the impeachment complaint against her unconstitutional. In her comment, Duterte said the House's arguments were 'mere diversions obsessed with trivia and blind to the decision's genuine core reasoning.' 'This fixation on peripheral details downplays the legitimate issue in this case, namely, that the HOR committed grave abuse of discretion and deliberately did away with constitutionally imposed limitations to its power to impeach,' the comment said. Three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected to the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its July 25, 2025 ruling, the SC said the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. It ruled that the one-year ban on multiple impeachment proceedings is reckoned from the time a complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. As a result, the SC said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. The House filed the motion for reconsideration a day before the Senate archived the impeachment complaint in light of the SC ruling. The House argued that the archiving of the first three complaints was done after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, thus not initiating the one-year ban. Duterte said that while this is true, it is misleading to suggest that the court based its ruling on a misapprehension of the sequence. Aside from this, she said that the SC did not err when it said that the fourth impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate without a plenary vote. 'A perusal of its own Rules on Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings betrays the HOR's assertions. A plain reading of Rule II, Section 2 thereof, reveals that even the second mode of impeachment requires a subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice,' she said. Duterte said that it was 'more absurd' for the House to claim that the first three impeachment complaints were not dismissed even after the transmittal of the fourth complaint, as the House still had numerous session days ahead. 'This contention collapses under the weight of its own logic and the HOR's own record. The archival of the first 3 prior impeachment complaints on February 5, 2025, after it had already decided to push forward with its preferred fourth impeachment complaint, was a deliberate act of disposition by the HOR itself,' she said. 'Whether the adjournment of that session was temporal or sine die is immaterial. The fact remains that the respondent HOR, by its own doing, formally set those complaints aside.'' The vice president said the arguments presented by the House have all been thoroughly considered and resolved by the high court. Duterte also said that the argument of the House that a new ruling on impeachment cases should be applied prospectively is wrong. "Jurisprudence dictates that prospectivity shields those outside the case from what might be unfair consequences for them. It does not grant blanket amnesty to the parties whose conduct is precisely found to be constitutionally void, as in this case," she said. "To permit respondent HOR to claim shelter under the prospectivity application of doctrine is to condone, rather than correct, their grave abuse of the impeachment process." –VBL, GMA Integrated News
