That gave away the real purpose of the Ombudsman investigation: To stop public discussion of the matter. That will also save Malacañang officials from explaining the unexplainable. It’s part of a grand cover-up

The Ombudsman lived up to the public’s doubt on the first day of hearing on the NBN/ZTE deal. Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros, one of the complainants in the criminal case against former Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos, said she was not impressed that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez inhibited herself.

"The Ombudsman announcement that she is inhibiting herself would have been a pleasant surprise had she done it four months ago. We fear that her late announcement is just a trick to make the panel credible, but she could have used the delay to lay down the groundwork to protect the interests of high officials close to her," Hontiveros said.

Hontiveros also expressed extreme dissatisfaction over the conduct of the first panel hearing. She said the panel members were very disorganized and appeared as if they don’t know what they have to do." They violated the rules of procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman by their failure to serve to Abalos the order to respond to the complaint ten days after it was filed. "Why it took them four months to issue the order has not been sufficiently answered," Rep. Hontiveros said, pointing out that every time that the violation is raised, the panel would just dismiss the manifestation.

It wasn’t also clear what the first hearing was for. "There was actually no hearing. They said that it was a preliminary investigation, but no such process took place. They merely gathered the complainants and the respondents in order to serve directly to the respondents the complaints. The Clerk of the Ombudsman could have done the same thing," she said.

Another complainant, Atty. Ernesto Francisco, warned that Gutierrez may face impeachment for betrayal of public trust if she fails to perform her constitutional duty of investigating and charging all those involved in the NBN-ZTE scam.

Francisco pointed out that under the Constitution, betrayal of public trust is one of the grounds for impeachment.

Francisco said, "In this regard, the Office of the Ombudsman should share the blame as to why our government officials, their relatives and cohorts have the gall to steal or attempt to steal hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of pesos from the Filipino people. Those involved in the NBN-ZTE scam would not have had the temerity to steal or attempt to steal if the Office of the Ombudsman is only doing its job. Sad to say, it seems that the Ombudsman has not lived up to its constitutional role as ‘protector of the people’ that, as a result, corruption in the government has turned from bad to worse and corrupt public officials think that they can easily get away with anything.

Francisco challenged the Office of the Ombudsman to redeem itself by truly investigating the involvement of both Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Mike Arroyo in the NBN-ZTE scam.

He said, "President Arroyo played a very important and crucial role in this controversy. The NBN-ZTE deal could not have taken place without her knowledge and/or approval because under the Constitution, the President has control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. "

Francisco disagrees with the line given by Malacañang officials that Gloria Arroyo has immunity from suits and Mike Arroyo is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman because he is not a government official.

Francisco said the Ombudsman Act states that the "Office of the Ombudsman shall have the power to investigate any serious misconduct in office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment, for the purpose of filing a verified complaint of impeachment, if warranted."

Moreover, in "all cases of conspiracy between an officer or employee of the government and a private person, the Ombudsman and his deputies shall have jurisdiction to include such private person in the investigation and proceed against such private person as the evidence may warrant. The officer or employee and the private person shall be tried jointly and shall be subject to the same penalties and liabilities."