Ombudsman Asks CA to Reverse Gwen Ruling

The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas is now asking the Court of Appeals (CA) to reverse its ruling which acquits former Cebu Governor and now Congresswoman Gwendolyn Garcia and former Provincial Board member Juan Bolo from the grave misconduct case.

“The Office of the Ombudsman is in agreement that the Aguinaldo doctrine is applicable but disagrees with petitioner as to its effect. The Office of the Ombudsman maintains that administrative adjudication is not precluded, and a finding of guilt is even necessary, for condonation to exist,” read the 13-page motion for reconsideration submitted by the Office of the Ombudsman to the CA last May 13.

Citing the Aguinaldo doctrine, the Court of Appeals last month cleared Garcia and Bolo from the grave misconduct charges filed against them in relation to the controversial Balili property. The said court reasoned that the former governor’s re-election to public office saved her from administrative liability under the said doctrine.

In January 9 last year the Office of the Ombudsman found Garcia, Bolo, Anthony Sususco, Roy Salubre, Eulogio Pelayre and Emme Gingoyon guilty of grave misconduct.

“The Aguinaldo doctrine simply means that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. It is respectfully submitted that the phrase “cutting off the right to remove” pertains only to respondent office’s power to impose the corresponding penalty and not its power to investigate,” the motion read.

“Although present Philippine jurisprudence presumes that the electorate has full knowledge of the life and character of the elected official including his past misconduct, such presumption is valid only if the electorate knew of the illegality of the act. However, how can the electorate expected to know of its illegality if no such finding of its illegality exists?” asked the Ombudsman. The motion was signed by Assistant Ombudsman Maribeth Taytayon-Padios and graft investigation and prosecution officer I Claudette Agatep-Granville.

The Office of the Ombudsman asked the Appeals Court not only to grant its motion but also to reinstate the Ombudsman’s decision on January 9, 2013, which found Garcia guilty of grave misconduct.

Respondent Crisologo Saavedra, on a separate motion for reconsideration filed before the same court, also assailed the CA’s decision. In his motion, Crisologo said the application of the Aguinaldo doctrine is unconstitutional.

“The doctrine of condonation is judicial legislation and therefore unconstitutional because it violates the power of Congress to make laws under Article IV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines,” read Crisologo’s motion.

Also, Crisologo said the Cebuano electorate, who voted to reelect Garcia as its governor in 2010, “cannot be assumed to have knowledge of the grave misconduct committed by petitioner (Garcia).” Without such knowledge, the electorate also cannot be assumed to have condoned such misconduct,” he added.

Garcia, Bolo and others figured in a host of legal suits following the controversial purchase of Balili property in the City of Naga Cebu. The controversy surfaced when it was discovered that the 249,246-square-meter property
was submerged in seawater.