Ombudsman Samuel Martires questioned the House of Representatives Committee for giving them a copy of its report on its investigation into the allegations against Vice President Sara Duterte, while claiming it did not file a complaint.

Martires issued the statement, after House of Representatives spokesperson Princess Abante said the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability did not file a criminal and administrative complaint against Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman.

“Eh bakit ba nila kami fu-furnish-an ng kopya ng result ng kanilang investigation? Ano ‘yun, gagawin naming ano, pardon the word, pero ano ‘yun, gagawin naming scratch paper? Ano ‘yon? We’re not even a part of that investigation of the House of Representatives kaya hindi kami dapat furnish-an ng kopya,” Martires said.

Abante made the clarification in light of the Office of the Ombudsman’s June 19 order asking Duterte to answer complaints of technical malversation, falsification, falsification of public documents, perjury, bribery, corruption of public officers, plunder, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

The Ombudsman order identified the House good government and public accountability panel as the complainant.

“Unang una, hindi ang House ang nag-file ng (First of all, the House did not file the) complaint. What the House initiated was the impeachment trial through the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment,” Abante said in a press conference.

Abante said that the House only furnished Martires a copy of the recommendations of the panel resulting from its inquiry on the budget use of Duterte, including the disbursement of confidential funds.

But, Martires said Abante may just have been confused.

“Siguro naguguluhan lang sila o naguguluhan lang ‘yung spokesperson. Ang nag-endorse sa amin ng committee report ng House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability ay ang Secretary General mismo. At sinasabi ng Secretary General, sa kanyang sulat, na itong committee report ni Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives,” he said.

(Maybe they are just confused or the spokesperson is confused. The one who endorsed to us the committee report of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability is the Secretary General himself. And the Secretary General said in his letter that the committee report of Representative Joel Chua was adopted by the House of Representatives.)

“So ang naging complainant dito na ginawa namin is the House of Representatives Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, represented by its chairperson, Representative Joel Chua. ‘Yun. So sino ang gagawin naming complainant?” Martires said.

Martires cited the Pharmally case in connection with the government’s purchase of P4 billion worth of RT-PCR test kits.

“If we remember the Pharmally case, it was not even a committee report kasi hindi lahat ng mga senador ay nag-concur kay (because not all senators concurred with) Senador Richard Gordon at sa (and with the) committee report. It is just considered as a mere result of an investigation of the Blue Ribbon Committee,” he said.

“Ang naging complainant du’n ay sina [former] Senador Gordon at Senador Risa Hontiveros (The complainants there became Senator Gordon and Senator Risa Hontiveros), representing the Blue Ribbon Committee,” Martires said. He said he did not even hear a whisper thereafter from Gordon asking why he was made the complainant.

“Si Senadora Imee, nag-file din ng kaso ‘di ba, lately lang. Sino ang complainant du’n? (Senator Imee also filed a case recently. Who was the complainant?) ‘Yung Senate Committee on Foreign Relations represented by Imee Marcos,” the Ombudsman said.

“Eh dito, sino ang magiging complainant? Alangan namang kami ang complainant? Hindi kami ang nag-imbestiga ng kaso,” Martires said.

“Nanggaling sa kanila at detalyado ang (It came from them and it detailed the) offenses that were allegedly committed by the Vice President and some of the employees and officers of DepEd [Department of Education] and the Office of the Vice President,” he added.

Martires said the House panel’s committee report “was treated as a complaint.”

He explained further: “Wala naman kaming pinagkaiba sa piskalya sa public prosecutor’s office ng Department of Justice. Kapag nag-file ka ng reklamo sa prosecutor’s office, ikaw ang nagrereklamo at hindi ‘yung piskal.”

“Pero kung finile ng piskal ‘yung iyong reklamo, nakita niya may katuturan, may katotohanan, finile sa husgado, ang nagrereklamo du’n ay hindi na ‘yung complainant kundi ang People of the Philippines,” Martires added.

The Ombudsman will continue the investigation into the allegations against Duterte, he said.

“Itutuloy namin ang imbestigasyon [kay Vice Pres. Duterte]. Para ano at binigyan kami ng kopya ng report ng investigation. Para ano? Para basahin lang namin?” Martires said.

“Bibigyan namin ang Kamara ng (We will give the House) sufficient time to file also their pledge from the time that they received a copy of the counter affidavit of the Vice President and the other respondents,” Martires said.

If the House committee does not want to cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman, then they may have to use their power to cite them in contempt, he said.

“Kung ayaw nilang makipag-cooperate sa amin, we might be forced, mapipilitan kami na gamitin ang aming power to cite them in contempt,” Martires said.

(If they do not want to cooperate with us, we might be forced to use our power to cite them in contempt.)

“Hindi kami nagbibiro. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng taumbayan. Trabaho ito na ibinigay sa amin ng Konstitusyon… Ano, bibigyan kami ng sulat, nirereklamo mo isang barangay captain, ano, babasahin lang namin?” he added.