THE May 20, 2024 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman thru Special Prosecutor and OIC Edilberto Sandoval, who signed it instead of Ombudsman Samuel Martirez that placed at least 69 individuals under preventive suspension was widely considered a good material for Ripley’s.
Why?
For one, it came like a thief in the night; nobody expected it and everybody especially those included in the Order were caught in surprise.
For another, how did they come up with the list?
For another, the names on the list are a halo-halo of officials (past and present, incumbent and retired), it even includes a dead person.
Yes, a dead person is being placed under preventive suspension by the Ombudsman.
Before we continue, what is the purpose of preventive suspension?
The pertinent provision reads – The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal from the service (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
Let us first focus on the 3rd element – the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
The placing of an officer or employee under preventive suspension presupposes that such officer or employee is still in government service. Thus, an officer or employee who is already retired, more so when already dead, could no longer be placed under preventive suspension. Especially if we connect this to the 2nd element – the charges would warrant removal from office.
How can he be ordered removed from office later on, or how can he influence witnesses or tamper evidence when such officer or employee has already vacated the office or already dead?
* * *
The object of the probe was the resort in Sagbayan town.
While the area is covered under the NIPAS law or a protected area, yet the records will show that the said land is covered under a validly issued title, in other words, the land where the resort is located is a private land, not public land.
As to why the resort was completed without the required ECC issued by the DENR, that is an issue that needs to be resolved.
Records will also show that the owner of the resort has a validly issued building permit from the Sagbayan LGU. Question – at the time the resort was constructed, was an ECC required?
Negative, not until now.
So okay, the locale of the controversy is Sagbayan town.
How come the local chief executives of other towns, very far from Sagbayan, have been included in the probe?
Another question – how come that even representatives (drivers or ordinary employees at that) of some officials are included in the list of those placed under preventive suspension?
Was there mere presence or attendance during the meeting enough reason for them to be placed under preventive suspension?
* * *
The Order says they are placed under preventive suspension for 6 months, without pay.
Which means, they are jobless and salary-less for that long period of time.
If the official is a family man, and the family is fully reliant and dependent on the salary of that official or employee, mag-unsa na man lang sila o asa na man lang sila magkuha og pang-gastos sa pagkaon ug uban pang panginahanglan matag adlaw sulod sa unom ka bulan?
Unya ang iya ra nga sala kay mituman siya sa sugo sa iyang amo nga mohimo og special attendance sa usa ka meeting sa PAMB nga tua sa laing lungsod ug dili sa Sagbayan.
Tiaw bay wa kay sweldo for 6 months?
Plus, every one of the 68 has to engage the services of a lawyer to defend his case.
Asa man ko og ibayad sa abogado boss nga nagsalig ra man ko’g sweldo, this was the question raised by one of the 68.
Indeed, where would he source his legal fees when he is now jobless and salary-less?
* * *
I will now vocalize the sentiments of many people – did the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman take very careful steps to ensure that only those directly involved or participated in any act or omission related to or connected with the construction of that controversial resort in Sagbayan town are included in the list, taking into account the very harsh and unfair imposition of preventive suspension for 6 months, and without pay?
If so, how come they included even those who are no longer in government service, or already dead?
* * *
Accordingly, the FIO charges the public respondents with Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service relative to the construction, operation and expansion of Captain’s Peak Resort in Canmano, Sagbayan, Bohol – an establishment nestled in the middle of the iconic Chocolate Hills National Monument – a declared protected area in Bohol.
Accordingly, the preventive suspension order was issued “…to prevent any possible tampering of evidence, harassment of witnesses, interference or exercise of influence by any of the respondents, and/or withholding of concealment of pertinent records or documents, and also to avert the commission of further malfeasance and misfeasance in office by the aforesaid respondents.”
* * *
And here’s another source of wonder.
In the list of respondents, the names of Congressman Rene Relampagos and Congressman/Governor Arthur Yap are included.
And yet, their names are not included in the list of officials to be placed under preventive suspension.
Ngano kaha?
Prominent in the list are Governor Aris Aumentado, some mayors, some barangay captains even from as far as Valencia, Bohol.
There is nothing in the Order that discusses the specific role, or the specific violation committed by Governor Aris, or the mayors or the barangay captains or even some representatives of members of PAMB of the NIPAS law, and conversely, there is nothing in the Order that exculpates both Relampagos and Yap when they are in fact listed as respondents.
Nagka-lawom ang misteryo.
