3 April 2006—The Supreme Court ordered the Ombudsman to speed up its investigation into the criminal liability of Comelec Commissioners involved in the failed automation project with Mega Pacific eSolutions Inc. In an eight-page resolution, the Ombudsman was directed to produce a report on its probe on officials and private individuals involved in the
P1.3 B case. The high court has given the anti-graft body until June 30 to render its first report.

The resolution was issued in response to the February 24, 2006 reply of the Ombudsman on why the court should not exercise its contempt powers.  The Supreme Court issued a prior resolution on February 14, 2006, asking the Ombudsman for an update since it has provided no information on its investigation since the Court ruled to nullify and void the contract on January 13, 2004.

The Ombudsman came up with the following points in response to the Court's resolution: 

• As a constitutionally independent body, the Ombudsman has no duty to report the status and completion of its investigation into the Comelec case, further justifying the January 13, 2006  “referral” did not specifically order it to come up with a report
• It is for the Ombudsman to determine the criminal liability of the officials involved “nothing more, noting less”, even if the January 13, 2004 decision is interpreted as a “directive”
• The Ombudsman actually acted on the Court’s directive by immediately conducting a series of investigations

This was the answer of the high court to the Ombudsman: 

• The power to cite in contempt is necessary to enforce court decisions, further, there is no excuse for disobeying or disregarding the order of the Court to investigate the Comelec officials involved
• In deference to the high court, the Ombudsman should have issued a report of its actions on the case
• The decision of the Court on January 13, 2004 contained a “directive”, not a “referral”.  Even without an express directive, the Ombudsman should have taken upon itself to conduct an investigation

The high court sent a stern warning to the Ombudsman that it will not hesitate to exercise its power of contempt on anyone failing to act on directives and other orders.  It gave as an example the Comelec which was cited in contempt for disobedience to a Supreme Court directive on the Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec case, and for delaying the resolution of the case. 

The “Comelec Mega Pacific case is both urgent and complicated” according to the Ombudsman. The report will prove as a litmus test for Ombudsman  Merceditas Gutierrez, and how serious she is to exercise the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate to protect the people from erring and abusive public officials.

< Back to Graft Busters main page