Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the real score behind a controversial impeachment

Seventy three percent conviction rate. 

Embattled Ombudsman
Merceditas Gutierrez

That's the conviction rate of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, according to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Gutierrez record stands even better than Marcelo's, Desierto's and Vazquez's performance. 


Despite this, a lynch mob of self-righteous self-gooders think that they know better or knows someone better than Gutierrez, who, during her time, convicted and placed behind bars, a former president once accused of plunder. 


Merceditas Gutierrez is simply a case of bad P.R. 


For one, her office failed to explain to the public how messy the judicial system is and that the Ombudsman is simply an investigative and prosecutory agency, not the final arbiter of cases.


Had the public been educated on the judicial process, this would not have happened. People would probably even praise her for the immediate conviction of several government officials, once considered as very influential politicians in their areas.


Likewise, Gutierrez's name was identified as someone very close to a corrupt regime, and therefore, presumed to be as corrupt as her principals. Having the former First Gentleman as a classmate is now considered as lethal as a snake bite. 


Gutierrez is widely and highly respected by her peers. I know that personally. I once visited the Office of the Ombudsman and saw for myself, how devoted the staff and employees of that government agency are to her. 


If Gutierrez is indeed corrupt, then, why the hell are these people here, supporting, even rooting for her retention?


Of course, there were several controversial cases which smack of bad judgements or missteps, like this plea bargaining agreement with former Major General Carlos Garcia. Garcia's case is most likely the worse proof of mishandling a clear case of plunder. But, trying her for this is simply not right. Or, trying her for having this association with a former corrupt husband of a corrupt leader is also, not exactly right.


The core of the impeachment complaint was her alleged conviction rate. If that is the case, then, all pieces of evidence would actually show that the Ombudsman performed her job in quite a sterling manner since she has a very high conviction rate. 


If the complaint stemmed from her alleged "inaction" on cases involving her powerful principals, then, there should be concrete pieces of evidence showing those alleged inactions. As this stands, it is simply a substantive matter. Meaning, it would be extremely hard to prove this allegation because a case is dismissed or not based on legal evidence, not on very substantive grounds as "sitting on a case". In law, there are subscription periods. If these periods indeed show an inaction, then, the person who sits as Ombudsman is not the person to be prosecuted, but the one who handles the case. That is the law. If the accuser says that it is a principle of command responsibility, then, this is pushing the issue too thinly.