SC allows Palace to probe prosecutor in Garcia plea bargain deal

The Supreme Court, voting 8-6, has upheld the validity of an investigation by the Office of the President on Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit, who was responsible for the plea bargain agreement entered into by the government and accused plunderer, retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia.   In a consolidated resolution issued on Sept. 4 but released to the media on Sept. 25, the court said it was "not convinced" by Sulit's argument that the Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive disciplinary power over a special prosecutor.   "[Petitioner] cannot insist that they should be solely and directly subject to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman. For, while Section 21 [of Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989] declares the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority over all government officials, Section 8(2), on the other hand, grants the President express power of removal over a Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor," the Supreme Court said in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.   Giving the president the power to remove a special prosecutor serves as a "check and balance" intended to address "concern that the Ombudsman and his Deputy may try to protect one another from administrative liabilities," the Supreme Court said.   It also said Sulit's argument that it was premature for Congress to charge her with culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust "will not hold water."   "The approval or disapproval of the [plea bargain agreement] by the Sandiganbayan is of no consequence to an administrative finding of liability against petitioner Barreras-Sulit," the court said.   It also denied Sulit's request to declare as unconstitutional Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act, saying such move "has, nonetheless, failed to obtain the necessary votes to invalidate the law, thus, keeping said provision part of the law of the land."   "We AFFIRM the continuation of OP-DC Case No. 11- B-003 against Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit for alleged acts and omissions tantamount to culpable violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of public trust, in accordance with Section 8(2)  of the Ombudsman Act of 1989," the court said.   As to the substantial matters of the administrative case against Sulit, the high court left it to the Office of the President to resolve.   Joining Perlas-Bernabe in the majority decision were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano Del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Bienvenido Reyes.   Garcia, his wife Clarita and their sons Ian Carl, Juan Paulo, and Timothy Mark were charged with plunder and money laundering in April 2005. The former military comptroller was accused of stealing around P303 million in public funds while in service.   On March 16, 2010, Sulit and her staff, representing the government in the case, asked and got an approval from the Sandiganbayan for Garcia to enter into a plea bargaining agreement with the government.   Under the approved agreement, Garcia was allowed, among others, to plead guilty to two lesser offenses, return to the government around half of the P303 million that he allegedly stole from the government, and ultimately to be set free by posting bail.   The House committee on justice conducted hearings on the matter and recommended to Malacañang the dismissal of Sulit and the filing of charges against her deputies and assistant for culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, which are violations under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and grounds for removal from office under the Ombudsman Act.   In response to the House recommendation, the Palace set a preliminary investigation on Sulit on April 15, 2011 through OP-DC Case No. 11- B-003. Sulit, however brought the matter before the Supreme Court, seeking to stop the probe due to "prematurity and the lack of jurisdiction of the Office of the President" to conduct such probe on a special prosecutor who belongs to the constitutionally-created Office of the Ombudsman.   Associate Justice Roberto Abad, meanwhile, voted to prohibit the Office of the President to proceed with its investigation on Sulit.   "If the Court chooses to uphold the constitutionality of Section  8(2) of R.A. 6770, the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor could be consulting the Office of the President or the Secretary of Justice before they act in any case in which the latter has an interest," he said.   "This is the ludicrous and unpalatable situation that the framers of the Constitution envisaged and sought to avoid when they granted the Office of the Ombudsman independence from others who wield governmental powers," he added.   Apart from Abad, the other justices who dissented were Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Portugal Perez. — KBK, GMA News