OMBUDSMAN Conchita Carpio Morales maintained on Monday the dismissal of criminal and administrative charges against former President Benigno Aquino III for the implementation of the P72-billion Disbursement Acceleration Program.
Morales apologized to some people for disappointing them over the case’s dismissal.
She told a CNN Philippines interview there was no probable cause to indict Aquino.
“They want Aquino’s head. We go by the evidence. If the evidence is there, if it’s rearing its ugly head, why should we not file the case?” she asked.
“But if the evidence does not merit the determination of probable cause, why should we go to court?”
In July 2011, Aquino appointed Morales as Ombudsman head after her retirement at the Supreme Court.
Despite such, Morales said she did not owe anything to the former president.
“Excuse me, I did not ask for that position. In fact, I was hesitant to accept that position. I wanted the luxury of retirement. But I was just gullible,” she said.
“Of course, I was challenged, (too).”
On March 7, the Office of the Ombudsman cleared Aquino and former Department of Budget and Management Undersecretary Mario Relampagos of charges for the implementation of the P72-billion DAP in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Only ex-budget Secretary Florencio Abad was found liable in the alleged illegal implementation of DAP.
As far as Aquino is concerned, Morales said he did not act in bad faith over DAP’s utilization, saying he even authored a measure to limit the President’s executive power when he was still a senator.
She said she had not committed anything wrong that could lead to her impeachment.
“I am confident, impeachment or no impeachment. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve done nothing wrong that can fall under any ground for impeachment,” she added.
She expressed disappointment over attacks over the dismissal of some high-profile cases at the Sandiganbayan due to the Ombudsman’s alleged delay without considering the merits of the cases.
“Why don’t they look at the Sandiganbayan? Why don’t they look at the regional trial courts? Why don’t they look at the Supreme Court?” she asked.
“Sometimes, I indulge in self-pity. Why do they look at the Office of the Ombudsman for inordinate delay? They are only looking at the Ombudsman.”