Members of the lower chamber on Sunday welcomed the “extraordinarily prompt” action of the Office of the Ombudsman to initiate a preliminary investigation into the alleged misuse of public funds by Vice President Sara Duterte and several others.
Manila Rep. Joel Chua called it a “strong affirmation of the weight and integrity” of the findings submitted by the House of Representatives.
“It is both unusual and significant that the Ombudsman proceeded directly to preliminary investigation and issued subpoenas to the respondents, skipping the usual fact-finding phase, all within the same week that we furnished them with a copy of the committee report. This kind of swift response sends a clear signal: the Ombudsman has found prima facie evidence to warrant a preliminary investigation on the basis of the committee report,” he said.
“The Ombudsman acted purely on the strength of our committee report. We have not yet even attached or submitted the supporting evidence for the committee report. That alone speaks volumes,” he added.
Chua also took note of the “dramatic shift” in tone from the Ombudsman.
“Just a few months ago, Ombudsman Samuel Martires publicly stated that he saw no grounds to investigate the Vice President. That he now believes otherwise shows that the facts uncovered by our committee could no longer be ignored,” he pointed out.
“Since the Ombudsman has effectively treated our committee report as the initiating complaint, we are prepared to fulfill our role as the complainant and ensure the process is based on truth, fairness, and accountability,” he noted.
ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro also lauded the Ombudsman’s order for Duterte to respond to the consolidated plunder, technical malversation, bribery, and corruption complaint levelled against her by Congress.
“We welcome the move of the Ombudsman on the criminal cases against VP Duterte, even as the impeachment proceedings take their course. It should not be one or the other. Impeachment is removal from office and perpetual disqualification. The criminal case, meanwhile, is for imprisonment, and the mere fact that she is asked to explain means it has a sound basis. It can also be done by the Ombudsman motu proprio as stated in Republic Act 6770 (the Ombudsman Act of 1989) and the Constitution,” she said.
“We would just like to warn the Ombudsman that, being a Duterte appointee, the people are extra vigilant in watching him as they fear that there may be a whitewash of the case against VP Duterte even if the evidence is overwhelming,” Castro added.
The party-list lawmaker said that the separate proceedings should each be allowed to reach their logical conclusions, which, in her assessment, should be convictions.
The Ombudsman included Duterte’s chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez; special disbursing officer Gina Acosta; former officials at the Department of Education, Sunshine Fajarda, Edward Fajarda, Annalyn Sevilla, and Nolasco Mempin; and Col. Raymund Lachica, the commander of her security group, as respondents.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires directed all respondents to file their counter-affidavit as well as affidavits of their witnesses, and other supporting documents within 10 days after receiving the order.
