Ombudsman to critics: Stop calling for my resignation

MANILA, Philippines — Embattled Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on Tuesday said she has no plans to satisfy her critics by stepping down from her powerful office. "I am not going to resign; I am not taking a leave of absence, despite calls by presidential wannabes," Gutierrez said in an article posted on www.ombudsman.gov.ph. Sen. Francis Pangilinan earlier dared Gutierrez to take an indefinite leave while an impeachment case filed against her is being deliberated upon. He said Gutierrez should go on indefinite leave to ensure that the official will not take advantage of her powers to "bully" her critics. On Monday, Gutierrez said she was considering filing falsification and perjury charges against those people behind her ouster case. Sen. Richard Gordon, who is also chair of the blue ribbon committee, urged the ombudsman last week to step down due to her alleged inaction on the controversial P728-million fertilizer fund scam. Gutierrez on Tuesday reiterated that she was doing her job contrary to allegations that she had been sitting on controversial cases. She also said that the ouster raps filed against her before the House of Representatives were "baseless." Gutierrez said she has done nothing morally or legally wrong to warrant her resignation from office. All cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman are decided based on their merits and not party affiliations, she explained. She also clarified that the Office of the Ombudsman acted on the alleged bid rigging on infrastructure projects immediately after receipt of the Referral Report on alleged irregularities on WB-funded road projects. However, she said the actions being taken were not divulged to the public because of prohibitions set forth in several laws and jurisprudence. She cited RA 6713 which prohibits government officials and employees from premature disclosure of information. RA 6713 states that “public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public, either: 1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or 2) To prejudice the public interest. She also stated that the Supreme Court, in Chavez vs. National Housing Authority, had set the limitations to the duty of the State and its agencies to fully disclose all of its transactions involving public interest. One of said limitations is “information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused; information on foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information." Aie Balagtas See, GMANews.TV