The Court of Appeals Special 17th Division has said in a decision that the ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed former senator Leila de Lima’s complaints against former justice secretaries Vitalino Aguirre and Menardo Guevarra over the use of convicted criminals as state witnesses in her drug cases, “outright based on inapplicable exceptions.”
“There was no valid reason for the Ombudsman to have refused to conduct an investigation on the administrative charges. Its unjustified refusal is contrary to its mandate under the law and cannot be tolerated,” the appellate court said.
“In dismissing the administrative complaint outright based on inapplicable exceptions under Section 20 of Republic Act 6770, the Ombudsman clearly deviated from its own rules of procedure, which is a violation of procedural due process,” it added.
The CA decision, written by Associate Justice Raymond Reynold Lauigan with the concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas Jr. and Eleuterio Bathan, said the ombudsman, instead of dismissing the cases outright, should have furnished the respondents with a copy of De Lima’s complaint-affidavit and ordered them to file their counter-affidavit and evidence.
In her criminal and administrative complaints, De Lima accused Aguirre of dereliction of duty and graft for allowing inmates to testify against her and admitting them to the government’s witness protection program. She also said both Aguirre and Solicitor General Guevarra gave “unwarranted benefits” to the inmates and failed to prosecute them despite confessing to their involvement in the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison.
Those testimonies led to the drug charges filed against De Lima in 2017 and her detention until 2023. Four inmates would later express their intentions to recant their allegations in the remaining drug case against her.
The CA clarified that it could only act on the administrative complaint filed by De Lima since the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint should be challenged before the Supreme Court.
This legal victory for De Lima, who had been at the receiving end of a vindictive government’s campaign to weaponize the law, is hopefully the beginning of a healing process for that justice system that had been allowed to be bastardized by the very same people who were supposed to protect and uphold it.
This is an opportunity for the country’s legal and justice system to repair the damage, not because of vindictiveness, but for the sake of the Filipino people whose trust in the system will need to be regained, especially after seeing it blatantly being abused by government officials, without fear of consequences.
For the justice system to heal itself, it must admit that it allowed itself to be wielded wrongly, and then identify and punish the people and the acts that compromised its integrity and sense of fairness. It cannot miss this opportunity to right a grievous wrong that could damage the institution permanently if left unchecked.*
