Gloria and Erap

In a desperate attempt to protect herself from prosecution for plunder, former president and now congresswoman Gloria Macapagal Arroyo informed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) of her opposition to the nomination of retiring Supreme Court justice Conchita Carpio-Morales to be the next Ombudsman. While it’s not uncommon for anybody to lodge an opposition to a nominee to this very important position, Gloria’s objection to Morales appears to be driven by her attempt to protect her personal and family’s interests rather than questioning Morales’ qualifications, experience, and competence.
In Gloria’s letter to the JBC dated June 6, 2011, she said, “If appointed Ombudsman, I sincerely believe that Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales would not have the required ‘independence’ and impartiality in resolving cases involving me and my immediate family.” Sounding paranoidal, she said that she would be the “principal target” of complaints filed before the Ombudsman, “taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the campaign promises of President Aquino, the creation of the Truth Commission under Executive Order No. 1, and the effort to remove Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez which was only aborted because of her resignation.”
Gloria is partially correct in the sense that she would be the “principal target” of President Benigno Aquino III, which he promised during the campaign. However, the role of the Ombudsman is prosecutorial; that is, the Ombudsman prosecutes cases brought before the Office of the Ombudsman by the Justice Department or any other agencies or parties. The Ombudsman’s key role is to determine “probable cause” for moving forward with the filing of cases before the Sandinganbayan (anti-graft court).
She also said that Morales consistently voted against the Supreme Court’s rulings which favored her administration while she supported decisions “involving efforts to investigate graft and corruption cases committed” during her tenure. What’s wrong with that?
Unlike former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who consistently found no probable cause in cases filed against Gloria and her husband Mike Arroyo, Morales’ independence – as proven during her tenure in the Supreme Court – would be her best defense if she were innocent.
As to the Gloria’s allegation that based on Morales’ voting pattern in the Supreme Court, she may not be impartial in handling cases involving her and her family, there is no basis for this. On the contrary, Morales’ voting record shows that she had voted in favor of half the cases involving Gloria or her administration. That alone is a testament to Morales’ judicial independence, notwithstanding the fact that Gloria appointed her to the high court. Unlike some of Gloria’s appointees to the Supreme Court, “utang na loob” – as Morales had proven – would not influence her constitutional duty as Tanodbayan or “protector of the people.”
It can then be presumed that if Aquino appointed her as Ombudsman, she would not ingratiate herself to Aquino in the same manner that Gutierrez ingratiated herself to Gloria. Indeed, if Morales is appointed, it will be because of her strength of character and judicial excellence.
At the end of the day, Morales’ appointment would be Gloria’s best chance of getting a fair prosecution before the Sandiganbayan. As to whether the verdict is going to be “guilty” or “not guilty,” that’s for the Sandiganbayan to decide. As I mentioned earlier, Gloria need not worry if she’s innocent; otherwise, she could end up in prison… for the rest of her life. And that would be her worst nightmare.
Former president Joseph “Erap” Estrada, whom Gloria ousted and detained for plunder, must be laughing right now. It seems that Karmic law is at play here.