Mandaue Mayor Jonas Cortes dismissed from office – Ombudsman

Cortes found guilty of grave misconduct for allowing batching plant to operate without permits

Suspended Mandaue City Mayor Jonas Cortes./ File Photo

MANDAUE CITY, Philippines — Mandaue City Mayor Jonas Cortes has been found guilty of grave misconduct and is meted the penalty of dismissal from the office by Office of the Ombudsman.

The complaint is anchored on the alleged act of Cortes for allowing the continuous operation from 2020 to 2022 of SUPREA Phils. Development Corp, a batching plant of concrete mix cement located in Sitio San Jose 1, Circumferential Road, Barangay Labogon, Mandaue City.

This despite the alleged lack of the required business permit, sanitary permit and clearance.

READ MORE:

If reelected, Cortes to pursue plan of building bigger city hospital

Mayor Jonas Cortes of Mandaue City suspended for 1 year

Cortes accepts suspension, questions implementation

Mayor Cortes: Decision came as no surprise

In a Facebook post, suspended Mayor Jonas Cortes, said that the Ombudsman’s case and decision came as no surprise. Cortes also accused his opponent as the one behind the decision.

“Nahibawo man gyud ta nga ang atoang kontra gigamit nila ang ilang koneksyun ug gahum at their disposal. But let me assure you just as we have faced challenges before, we will not back down,” Cortes said.

(We really know that our opponent has used their connections and power at their disposal. But let me assure you just as we have faced challenges before, we will not back down.)

Cortes said that they would exhaust all legal remedies to appeal the decision. 

“Because it is not just me, it is about the trust you have placed in me, and I wil defend that trust with all that I have. Ang Mandaue kanunay’ng nagpabiling usa ka siyudad sa hiniusang pagbangon, ug nasayod ko sa akoang kasing-kasing nga malabang nato kining unos nga malampuson,” he said in his post.

(Because it is not just me, it is about the trust you have placed in me, and I will defend that trust with all that I have. Mandaue has always remained as one city who rise together and I know deep in heart that we will overcome this storm successfully.)

“Naghangyo ako sa inyong padayung pakigbisog ug suporta samtang kita magbarog nga lig-on tungod ang hustisya ug kamatuuran anaa sa atoang kiliran. Together we will move forward no matter what,” he added.

(I plead to you to continue to fight with me and support me while we stand on solid ground because justice and truth is on our side. Together we will move forward no matter what.)

The Office of the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss Mayor Cortes from office came as he was serving his one year suspension for allegedly appointing an unqualified officer-in-charge at the City Social Welfare and Services.

His suspension started last August 2024.

READ MORE:  Ombudsman dismisses ex-Albay gov, bars from holding any public post

Why mayor was dismissed

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman decision against Cortes, which was dated September 12, 2024, said that with the mayor allowing the continued operation of SUPREA Phils., its operation allegedly posed health risk and disturbances to those who lived close to the plant.

However, the decision said that Cortes allegedly refused to issue a cease and desist order against SUPREA Phils. and allowed the batching plan to continue to operate.

The Ombudsman said that as a mayor, the regulation and monitoring of the operations of SUPREA involved the very functions that respondents ought to discharge by virtue of his office. 

“He has a duty to act, but he deliberately chose not to act,” said the Ombudsman in the decision.

Cortes only allegedly issued the so-called mission order for the Mandaue City Environment and Natural Resources Office on March 11, to conduct an inspection of the activities of SUPREA.

“While it may be true that the team continued with its surveilance in 2022, this only concerned environmemtal factors. At the outset, the surveillance is not the action required when the irregularity involved the absence of permits and clearances,” the decision read.

The Ombudsman added that the conduct of inspection, imposition of penalties, and implementation of mitigating and preventive measures are not sufficient to address the plight of the affected residents of Barangay Labogon.

“Such misconduct is clearly demonstarted when respondent allowed its operation in 2020 until 2022 without a business permit and the required sanitary permit and environmental clearance and refused to immediately act on the reccommendations of the MCENRO as early as 2020,” it added.

Enviromental Compliance Certificate

The Ombudsman noted that while SUPREA was issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate on April 26, 2019, the requirements of permits and clearances could not be dispensed with as stated by the DENR Regional Director William P. Cuñado in his letter addressed to SUPREA. 

“This certificate does not create any right nor be used as an authorization to implement the project. Hence, you are hereby to secure the necessary permits,” part of the letter of Cuñado said.

The plant should have to secure a notice to proceed prior to project implementation of which it would require all the necessary permits from government agencies.

Lastly, the Ombudsman added that Cortes had been found guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in the case of Monsanto vs Cortes, OMB-V-A-SEPT-23-0221.

Impose maximum penalty

In the said case, the penalty imposed was mitigated from dismissal from service to supension from the service for one year. 

“In view of the outcome of the said administrative case, the office is now constrained to impose against Cortes the maximum penalty of Dismissal from the Service,” said Ombudsman in its decision.

The Ombudsman also said that in the event that the penalty of dismissal could no longer be enforced due to respondent’s separation from the service, the same should be converted into a fine equivalent to respondent’s salary for one year.

According to the decision of the Ombudsman, this can be payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondent’s accrued leave credits or any receivables from his office. 

It shall be understood that the accessory penalties attached to the principal penalty of dismissal shall continue to be imposed.