Antonio Trillanes IV 鈥擡DWIN BACASMAS
Malaca帽ang on Tuesday challenged opposition Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV to file an impeachment complaint against President Duterte after it suspended Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang.
The Palace on Monday suspended Carandang for 90 days for grave misconduct and other administrative offenses after he disclosed the alleged bank records of the President .
Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque also dismissed the senator鈥檚 allegation that the administration was 鈥渂ullying鈥� the Office of the Ombudsman, which was investigating the plunder charge that Trillanes had filed against the President.
鈥淕o ahead and file the impeachment complaint. Do it ASAP and we will see you in the House (of Representatives),鈥� Roque said.
Trillanes, who released the bank records of Mr. Duterte during the 2016 presidential campaign, said Malaca帽ang鈥檚 move against Carandang was an 鈥渋mpeachable offense.鈥�
He said the suspension violated Section 5 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which, he pointed out, 鈥渃learly states the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and its Deputies.鈥�
Trillanes also noted that the Supreme Court affirmed in 2014 that Malaca帽ang had no power to discipline the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman.
鈥淐learly, this is another Duterte tactic that鈥檚 meant to bully democratic institutions into submission so he could go on with his dictatorial and corrupt ways,鈥� the senator said.
Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II on Tuesday rebutted Trillanes鈥� claim that Carandang鈥檚 suspension was a ground to impeach Mr. Duterte.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 not an impeachable offense,鈥� Aguirre told journalists in Lucena City.
鈥楲egal question鈥�
He said the Malaca帽ang order was a 鈥渓egal question.鈥�
Trillanes on Tuesday said he was not qualified to file an impeachment case against President Duterte.
鈥淣ot me since, as a senator, I am technically disqualified to do that,鈥� Trillanes said in a text message.
Once the one-year ban in filing impeachment cases lapses this April, 鈥渟omebody will definitely file another impeachment case against Mr. Duterte,鈥� the senator said.
An impeachment complaint may be filed against an impeachable official only one year after the House of Representatives accepted an earlier complaint.
In March 2017, Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano filed an impeachment complaint against Mr. Duterte in connection with the mass murder of drug suspects and his alleged unexplained wealth.
He filed a supplemental complaint alleging that the President had done nothing to defend Philippine territory against China.
By a 217-4 vote, the House dismissed the impeachment complaint in May last year for insufficiency of substance.
A vote of at least one-third of the 292-member House is needed to impeach the President, a tall order in a chamber dominated by supporters of Mr. Duterte.
鈥楤ullying鈥� charge
For his part, Roque denied that the administration was bullying the Ombudsman, an independent constitutional body.
鈥淭hat cannot be bullied. You know that it has its own moves. But what (Carandang) did and said about the papers Trillanes revealed (were debunked when) the AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council) said that the documents did not come from it and that the figures were wrong and misleading,鈥� he said.
Without a temporary restraining order from a court, the suspension of Carandang was immediately executory, according to Roque.
He maintained that Malaca帽ang had the authority to discipline presidential appointees, like Carandang, who may not be subjected to impeachment proceedings.
Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2014 a provision of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 that gave the Office of the President (OP) power to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman.
The high court said giving the OP oversight powers over a Deputy Ombudsman would open it to 鈥渆xternal pressures鈥� and 鈥減artisan politics.鈥�
The tribunal said the Deputy Ombudsmen should also have the same independence enjoyed by the Ombudsman, who may be removed only through impeachment.
Roque said Malaca帽ang was confident that the Supreme Court would reverse its 2014 ruling.
Aguirre admitted that it was his recommendation to challenge the tribunal鈥檚 decision.
鈥淎s a matter of fact, there are lots of Supreme Court rulings that had been reversed after a new case was filed,鈥� the justice secretary said.
鈥淚t is possible that it will happen again and that 2014 ruling can be overturned,鈥� he added.
Calida
Like Aguirre, Solicitor General Jose Calida expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would reverse its 2014 decision.
鈥淭he Supreme Court has held that the power to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested,鈥� Calida said in a statement.
For Akbayan Rep. Tomasito Villarin, Carandang鈥檚 suspension showed 鈥渢he hypocrisy of Malaca帽ang in fighting corruption when its occupant becomes the subject of an investigation.鈥� 鈥�With reports from Marlon Ramos and Vince F. Nonato