Ombudsman upholds Gwen’s dismissal

Gwen Garcia

HOUSE Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn Garcia’s plan to run for governor in the 2019 elections may just hit a major obstacle.

This after the Office of the Ombudsman, in a decision released yesterday, upheld Garcia’s dismissal from public service and her perpetual disqualification from running for public office stemmed from the unauthorized P24.47 million project to backfill a largely underwater Balili property in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City that was bought when she was the governor of Cebu.

In an order dated July 18, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Kristine Suzanne Fineza found no sufficient basis to reverse an earlier ruling by the anti-graft body.

“The motion for reconsideration lacks merit,” said Fineza, whose findings were approved by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.

Sought for comment, Garcia said the decision was nothing but “political persecution.”

Cebu’s third district congresswoman said she will contest the Ombudsman’s ruling before the Court of Appeals.

“What do you expect from a retired Ombudsman who has done nothing else but to persecute us?,” Garcia told reporters in a phone interview on Monday.

Garcia said Morales is a friend of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. who is the father of her political opponent, incumbent Cebu Gov. Hilario “Junjun” Davide III.

“It’s very clear that she (Morales) is after me because I’ll be running against the incumbent governor who is her friend and whom she shares lunch together with every Wednesday,” the congresswoman said.

Garcia, in her motion for reconsideration, argued that she could not be made accountable for an administrative offense committed during her previous term, as provided under the Aguinaldo or condonation doctrine.

Also, she said the Ombudsman has no administrative disciplinary authority over members of Congress.

But the anti-graft office disagreed with Garcia.

Fineza, in her order, said the condonation doctrine only applies to a “public officer who was elected to a different position provided that it is shown that the body politic (voters) electing the person to another office is the same.”

“This office, however, finds that the body politic that elected her as representative is not the same as those who voted her previously as Cebu governor,” the investigator said.

“The electorate for the third district representative only pertains to a fraction of the electorate for Cebu governor which comprises the whole province. Hence, it cannot be said that the same people who elected her as Cebu governor condoned her misdeeds and decided to re-elect her again to public office,” she added.

As to Garcia’s argument that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over her, Fineza said the congresswoman was still the governor of Cebu when the complaint against her was docketed on June 6, 2013.

“It is well settled that jurisdiction once acquired is never lost. This office cannot be ousted from jurisdiction simply because respondent became a member of Congress while the case was still pending,” she said.

Fineza said a copy of the decision was furnished to the current House Speaker, former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, for appropriate action. Then Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez had refused to implement Garcia’s dismissal order.

The disciplinary sanction stemmed from Garcia’s alleged failure to secure the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s authority when she entered into the contracts with ABP Construction in April 2012.

The P24.47 million project pertained to the supply of backfilling materials for the submerged portions of the Balili property in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, some 22 km south of Cebu City.

Garcia claimed that the P50 million allotment for the “airport/seaport and other economic enterprise site development program” was a valid source of appropriation for the Balili project.

However, the Ombudsman said it did not automatically confer authority on Garcia to enter into the backfilling project deal.

The anti-graft office said Garcia violated Sections 46 and 47, Chapter 8, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Section 86 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, which bars officials from entering into contracts without a certification of appropriation and fund availability.

The Ombudsman said it was “undisputed” that Garcia only secured the certification when she entered into a second contract for the project.

The dismissal order carries the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, cancellation of eligibility and forfeiture of retirement benefits.

The Cebu provincial government’s 2008 purchase of the P98.93 million land was itself already controversial as local authorities later discovered that 196,696 square meters or 79 percent of the 249,246-square meter property was underwater and part of a mangrove area.

The transaction is currently subject of pending graft and malversation cases before the Sandiganbayan.