OMBUDSMAN TO PALACE: NOT DEFYING P-NOY'S ORDER IN GONZALES DISMISSAL
MANILA, APRIL 7, 2011 (STAR) By Michael Punongbayan - The Office of the Ombudsman clarified yesterday that it is not defying Malacañang's order dismissing Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III.
"There is no intention to be defiant. We can never be defiant of the President of the Republic of the Philippines," said Assistant Ombudsman and spokesperson Jose de Jesus Jr.[photo]
He said that in deferring the implementation of the dismissal order, they were merely following the proper dismissal procedure.
De Jesus said the Office of the Ombudsman will "act appropriately" afterwards, considering that even Malacañang recognizes the legal options available to Gonzalez.
"H'e's a lawyer and he knows what is right and wrong," De Jesus told The STAR when asked if Gonzalez would step down if the order becomes final and executory.
De Jesus earlier explained that the Office of the Ombudsman is allowing Gonzalez to handle the issue by either filing a motion for reconsideration or filing a petition either with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Last week, Malacañang ordered Gonzalez dismissed from government service for neglect of duty and grave misconduct in connection with the delay in the resolution of the case of slain hostage-taker Rolando Mendoza.
Court upholds Ombudsman Suspension order vs. PNP official valid By Jomar Canlas, Reporter
THE Office of the Ombudsman scored a victory before the Court of Appeals (CA) after the appellate court junked a plea of a police official who had been suspended over a controversial foreign trip three years ago.
In a three-page resolution of its First Division written by Associate Justice Jane Aurora Lantion, the court denied on Tuesday the application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by Senior Supt. Samuel Rodriguez.
"In view of the foregoing, petitioner's application for temporary restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby denied," the resolution stated.
Other magistrates who concurred with the ruling were Presiding Justice Andres Reyes Jr. and Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao.
The appellate court directed Rodriguez and the Office of the Ombudsman to file their respective memoranda within 20 days.
Afterward, the case shall be submitted for decision.
The court ruled that the official of the Philippine National Police (PNP) had failed to substantiate his claim in opposing the preventive suspension slapped on him by Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
"We find that petitioner failed to substantiate his clear and unmistakable right to an injunction," the court said.
Gutierrez objected to the plea for the restraining order of Rodriguez, contending that a preventive suspension is necessary in order to prevent him from using his position and influence in tampering with evidence from a visit to Russia by a group of PNP officials in 2008.
The officials shortly were referred to as "Euro generals," having been stopped at a Moscow airport for carrying hundreds of thousands of euros that allegedly they had planned to sneak out of Russia.
The Office of the Ombudsman argued that the preventive suspension of Rodriguez was immediately executory.
Another Euro general, Budget Division Director Tomas Rentoy 3rd, had filed for a restraining order and later on won a ruling from another division of the appellate court.
In a 16-page order in September 2010, Ombudsman Gutierrez placed also under preventive suspension for six months without pay Rentoy; Special Disbursing Officer Rodriguez; Finance Service Director Orlando Pestano; Police Supt. Elmer Pelobello; Directorate for Human Resources and Doctrine Development Director German Doria; and Directorate for Operations Director Silverio Alarcio Jr. The suspension order was reaffirmed by the Ombudsman in February 2011.
The Euro generals earlier were charged administratively by the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombdusman (OMB-FIO), together with now retired PNP officials Avelino Razon Jr., Romeo Ricardo, Emmanuel Carta, Ismael Rafanan, Jaime Caringal and Eliseo de la Paz, with grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the police service.
They had traveled on October 7-11, 2008 as Philippine delegates to the 77th Interpol General Assembly at Saint Petersburg.
Pelobello allegedly computed travel allowances of the delegates without considering limits in the daily subsistence allowance, the rules on austerity measures (Administrative Order 13) and the one-year travel ban for retiring PNP officials.
Rodriguez, Rentoy and Pestano allegedly disbursed PNP confidential and intelligence funds, which were their identified source of the seized euros from the dela Paz and his wife spouses.
Private source The confiscated money was found to have come from a private source, which was not duly declared by de la Paz in his statement of assets, liabilities and new worth or SALN.
If due process went the way of Senior Supt. Rodriguez, the same allegedly was not accorded to him by the Office of the Ombudsman.
A former Philippine ambassador to the United Nations, Lauro Baja, on Wednesday accused Gutierrez of depriving him due process when the agency supposedly presented only one-sided evidence against him.
Through his counsel Pacifico Agabin, Baja stated in his nine-page motion that the anti-graft agency did not furnish him copies of documents that he should have refuted to countervail graft cases lodged against him.
"The defendant [Gutierrez] failed to properly refute all of the allegations of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, which were the bases of the adverse resolution [of the Ombudsman]," he said.
Baja added that he was never furnished a copy of the resolution that became the basis of the five charge sheets against him.
He said that copies of the Ombudsman's pieces of evidence—the audit report of the Commission of Audit and records from the Department of Foreign Affairs—also never reached him.
According to Baja, clarificatory hearings were not also called by the investigating officer, during "which [hearings] the defendant could have been afforded the right to examine the above mentioned documents."
He said that he was not even given the chance to file a motion for reconsideration when the Ombudsman issued the resolution bearing the probable cause of his alleged crimes.
"In the present case, the Ombudsman did not conduct a complete preliminary investigation, and has committed several serious errors of law in assessing the one-sided evidence presented against defendant," Baja added.
The former ambassador to the United Nations has been indicted on four counts of graft and a count of malversation of public funds for the repair of the ambassadorial townhouse in New York City, the claim of insurance proceeds and the repayment for the lost jewelry of his wif.
With Report From John Constantine G. Cordon
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
