Solon on Ombudsman order: VP Sara must be impeached first

Metro Manila, Philippines - The head of the congressional probe on Vice President Sara Duterte’s alleged misuse of confidential funds said he and other lawmakers were surprised by the Ombudsman’s swift action on their recommendation to charge Duterte, arguing that impeachment proceedings should take precedence.

Manila 3rd District Rep. Joel Chua, chairperson of the House committee on good government and public accountability, said the Ombudsman ordered Duterte to respond to the allegations just three days after receiving the panel’s findings.

He added that jurisprudence makes it clear Duterte “must be impeached first” before she can be held criminally or administratively liable.

“Kaya medyo nasurpresa rin kami sa bilis ng trabaho ng ating Ombudsman but just the same, ito’y wine-welcome namin at kami ay makikipag cooperate fully,” Chua said in a press conference on Monday, June 23.

[Translation: That's why we were somewhat surprised by how quickly the Ombudsman acted, but just the same, we welcome it and will fully cooperate.]

The committee report adopted by the House of Representatives recommended multiple charges against Duterte - including plunder, corruption, technical malversation, falsification, perjury, and bribery - over the alleged misuse of ₱612.5 million in confidential funds. These charges also formed part of the grounds for the House’s decision to impeach the vice president.

No fact-finding?

Chua said it would be better for the Ombudsman to observe the impeachment trial first and review the evidence, especially since the agency had allegedly skipped the fact-finding stage.

“Normally pag ganyan may committee report, ang gagawin niyan, yung Field Investigation Office magko-conduct ng fact-finding investigation, kukunin lahat ang ebidensya… bago pa lang magpo-proceed sa preliminary investigation. Ito nawala na yung fact finding investigation nag proceed na agad sa preliminary investigation,” he said.

[Translation: "Normally, when there’s a committee report like that, the Field Investigation Office conducts a fact-finding investigation first, gathering all the evidence... only then does it proceed to a preliminary investigation. In this case, the fact-finding investigation was skipped, and it went straight to preliminary investigation.]

Chua recalled that Ombudsman Samuel Martires appeared to change his stance, noting that in November, Martires said he saw no grounds for his office to investigate Duterte over the controversy involving her confidential funds and the alleged threats against the president and his family.

“Ayaw naman nating mag insinuate kung ano ang nasa isip ng ating Ombudsman [We don’t want to insinuate what the Ombudsman is thinking],” Chua said.

“The mere fact na in-adopt nila yung aming committee report nang hindi pa naman din naka-attach doon ang mga ebidneysa, ibig sabihin nun na malamang nakikita nila na meron nang probable cause,” he added.

[Translation: But the mere fact that they adopted our committee report even though the evidence wasn’t yet attached suggests they may have already seen probable cause.]

Over the weekend, incoming Mamamayang Liberal Representative and prosecutor Leila de Lima expressed concern over the Ombudsman’s action, suggesting it may be an attempt to hastily dismiss the complaint against Duterte - a move that could potentially be used by her defense team to undermine the impeachment case.

She noted that Martires, a known appointee of Duterte’s father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, will retire in July.

VP to respond

In a chance interview in Australia, the vice president said she would file her response within the 10-day period given by the Ombudsman.

“We've been preparing for this since November of 2023, the moment that we heard Representative [France] Castro from the House of Representatives mention the word impeachment. So, we've been preparing for this, and we've hired lawyers since 2023. So, they will answer,” she said.