by Diego Morra
As expected, Sara Zimmerman Duterte Carpio’s reply to the impeachment complaints filed by Rev. Fr. Jose Saballa, et. al. and Atty. Nathaniel G. Cabrera is to demand that the Committee on Justice dismiss them as she rejected all the allegations and argued that the piles of evidence annexed to the complaints were mere hearsay, conjectures and not based on ultimate facts.
The 15-page reply is the written version of what Sara has been saying all along—that all the factual findings of the Quad Committee of the House of Representatives that conducted lengthy hearings on the so-called P125-million confidential and intelligence funds (CIF) she disbursed in 11 days in 2022 meant nothing, the admissions of her subordinates that she directed the transfer of cash to her security officers who did not qualify as special disbursing officers (SDOs) were fabrications, the confession of a DepEd lawyer that she distributed money to him and others were rumors and the confirmation by Philippine Army (PA) officers that the Department of Education (DepEd) did not fund anti-insurgency youth summits was a tall tale.
The testimony of ousted DepEd undersecretary Gloria Mercado that she was given cash for strange reasons but was kicked out when she did not follow an instruction as regards the computerization program has not been disproved by Sara or her lawyers. The envelopes containing the money for Mercado were submitted to the Quad Committee and all that the Sara camp could say was that Mercado “disobeyed” orders and accused her of launching a money-making scheme in collaboration with a private company. The accusation was promptly torched by documents that Mercado produced. The House inquiry also exposed the impossibility of Sara’s trusted disbursing officer to physically loads of money to DepEd regional offices nationwide within 24 hours.
These and more could hardly be labeled as hearsay as they were disclosed under oath, unlike Sara, a lawyer, whom refused to take the oath as a resource person to shed light on the financial irregularities happening in her office. She could not invoke inter-departmental courtesy as the basis of her refusal as former Presidents Fidel Ramos and Noynoy Aquino took the oath when they testified before Congress. Surely, what is sauce for the gander must also be the sauce for the goose. Or is she a firm believer in that famous George Orwell quote: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Sara’s reply also implies her obsession with her victimhood. She accuses the House Committee on Justice for being unfair to her and denying her due process inasmuch as the impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was given short shrift by the panel headed by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro and dismissed for insufficient form and substance, effectively killing any impeachment complaint against Marcos Jr. for one year. It is not Sara’s job to tell any congressional panel what must do; it is the prerogative of the legislature as a collegial body to do what it ought to do under its rules. By moping that Marcos Jr. was treated royally, he is casting doubt on the independence of the Luistro panel.
Invoking Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Marvic Leonen’s ponencia, Sara argued that due process must be observed in crafting, filing and assessing impeachment complaints. Respondents are more equal that plaintiffs. If the Leonen ponencia were written in stone, impeachment complaints may as well be written in water, like China’s 10-dash line. Duterte Jr. is now citing the decision to make it harder for the process to continue promptly and there is no barring the 16 Sara lawyers to run to the SC and cry uncle.
However, as Bayan Muna Chairman Neri Colmenares argued, impeachment is an option that the sovereign people could always resort to as a political means to remove corrupt, negligent and incompetent leaders, including those supporting countries with revanchist designs on the Philippines. By making it doubly hard to impeach an erring official, the SC decision must, perforce, compel Congress to formally craft a law that systematizes the impeachment process and thus deny the High Court the opportunity to legislate.
Curiously, Sara also questioned why the Commission on Audit’s disallowances on DepEd were cited in the impeachment complaint, arguing that there are pending issues with such disallowances. There is nothing in the books that bar the use of legitimate COA memos, orders and disallowances as part of an impeachment or criminal complaint, particularly when disallowances cover billions of pesos that have been wasted, misused ort simply pocketed. It is the duty of COA to protect people’s money, and it is the duty of the Filipino people to compel officials like Sara to act decently and never commit infidelity in the custody of the country’s scant resources.#
