impeaching mercy

i don’t get why senators pangilinan and guingona are urging the ombudswoman to resign rather than be impeached and go to trial.   “to spare the country of this conflict” daw.   more like, to spare us the truth?   the facts?   of the cases against her?   but why?   masyado bang maraming madadamay?   but why spare them?

or is there a chance na mapapahiya lang sila, whether the lower or upper house, because they don’t have the numbers pala?

and this recommendation of senators to impeach her for the plea-bargain agreement with garcia, when there is already an impeachment process going on in the lower house for other cases — ano ‘yon?   obvious naman that that would have to wait until next year, should the ongoing one fail.   besides, merceditas says it’s for the sandiganbayanto decide the plea-bargain complaint against her, not the senate.

what’s going on, honorable senators?


  1. manuelbuencamino


    Realistically, a conviction would be difficult. The 2/3 vote is a big hurdle.

    As to the recommendation to impeach, that is what they are supposed to do after they accused/found Gutierrez and cohorts guilty of betraying the public trust on the plea-bargain. I don’t think it is meant for this impeachment rather it is for next year if this one does not happen.

    Merci is technically correct in the sense that it is the Sandigan that will approve the plea bargain. However it is for the public and its representatives to decide whether or not there was betrayal of public trust on the role of Gutierrez and cohorts in agrreing to the plea bargain.

  2. jumilla and elchico made an issue of it, na with the senators recommneding mercy’s impeachment for the plea-bargain, they’ve already pre-judged her and twill affect their decision should the lower house’s case make it to senate for trial.

  3. UP nn grad

    Merceditas should let the impeachment trial continue, apparently she does not have a Lexus or a glass-and-concrete mansion that can be traced to any of the Ombudsman office to pursue (or not pursue) any charge of wrongdoing, so Mercy should let the impeachment trial continue. “Plunder” won’t be a charge against her, and she should stand her ground. Incompetence? Dime a dozen, she should stand her ground.

    Plea-bargaining, inefficiencies in the administration of the law, lack of funds for police investigations, even pressure from Politicos are part of the environment that determines the productivity of the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Impeachment is politics cum evidence (or maybe it is evidence cum politics). Pinoys-in-Pilipinas should witness how the balance politics-cum-evidence is wielded in the Noynoy administration.

  4. i too would like a good impeachment trial. its a good litmus test of whether we should change the consti actually — if congress can prove it can do this, then one of the reasons for political charter change looses its bite.

  5. UP nn grad

    If being effective (obtaining at least 50% conviction rate) or being on the wrong of the sitting president is the basis for firing ‘dem bums, then at least half of the office-holders of the Office of Ombudsman should have been fired since 1988. But the 1987 Constitution has insulated the Ombudsman from being fired-at-will (unlike Cabinet Secretaries or UnderSecretaries and Malakanyang gardeners or hairdressers).

  6. Ah, UP n, you’re correct. But this present government has a specific objective, a promise that has to be fullfilled.

    There are many ways to skin a cat, and so, if the skinning is also legal according to the constitution, then the Ombudsman is not insulated from being impeached while the gardeners and the hairdressers are at the mercy of the sitting president.

  7. UP nn grad

    I think that the office with Merci as head has done an extremely lousy job. Just go back to the IIRC report and Ombudsman office role regarding policeman Mendoza (the murderer) and Quirino grandstand; there are many other cases like the younger Tupas (the younger, not the Iloilo governor) where Pilipinas is served better had the investigation/filing-of-charges/guilty- not not-guilty gets determined fast. That Noynoy always sees GMA when he sees Merci is not relevant. The office — the entire body — has not won enough convictions and therefore “command responsibility” would require Merci to be fired by the President. Too bad — the “Office of Ombudsman” can not be fired by the sitting president.

  8. “That Noynoy always sees GMA when he sees Merci is not relevant.”-UP n

    Ah, come now, UP n, you’re speculating, and sliming your president, when all he wants to do is remove the cog on the wheel-of-justice. Or, is that because you have another president in mind and not our president?

  9. UP nn grad

    That’s one of the things that a healthy country should allow — sliming their president (as well as their head-CBCP or head-Reverend) whether in jest because they are kalbo or still no-children, or sliming with GMA-Talsik-Diyan!!!-Crooked-Crooked-Garci!!! IIRC-Best-Friends-Exempted!!! or for let’s all say the rosary for Cory-to-be-anointed-a- Saint.

    Too bad for Pilipinas, though, reporters can’t even report on which head of government at any level was discovered in a hotel room — Penalty for printing such stories — 6 months or more in jail.

    Pilipinas libel laws need to be updated!!!

  10. But, UP n, you have to remember that that was in the time of the old government and Noggie the former top honcho of the house was such a lapdog of the former president and so if you are a reporter who happened to have a knack for seeing through peepholes of hotel rooms then see Noggie inside playing hide-n-seek with someone who is not free anymore you just don’t mess up with Noggie else you’ll sure end up six or more months in the calaboose. Time has changed.

  11. lynda jumilla

    hi angela,

    backreading again. just a teeny-weeny clarification on your comment above. alvin and i didn’t say the senators shouldn’t prejudge merci. after all, we’re not in a perfect world. we were just pointing out that pangilinan and guingona should not have made any statements to that effect because it would open them to accusations of bias and prejudgement, and therefore would be under pressure from the pro-merci groups to inhibit. in short, they should have just kept their mouth shut.
    of course, all water under the bridge now. thanks for this opportunity to clarify.


  12. hi lynda :) i’m more curious now why she resigned na lang. tupaz says in the inquirer na it was because people from her office were prepared to testify against her. i’m back to wondering kung sino-sino kasing madadamy, besides the usual suspects. pangilinan and guingona must know something…

    btw congrats on your new show ;)