This was after she received
“her copy” of the “motion for preventive suspension of respondents” filed by
complainant Isog Han Samar Movement (ISM) represented by Fr. Noel Labendia
of the Diocese of Calbayog.
Included in that motion
filed three months ago at the Office of the Ombudsman, Preliminary
Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau-A in Diliman Quezon
City were Gov. Tan, and members of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Samar as
named respondents.
The two “graft charges” were
marked under Administrative Case OMB-C-A-05-0051-B with CPL No. C-04-2045
for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, etc. and Criminal Case OMB-C-A-05-0049-B
for Plunder with CPL No. C-04-2045.
In a document obtained by
this publication, it stated that the evidence of guilt against respondents
is strong, “and the charges against them involve acts of dishonesty,
oppression or gross misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty, which
if proven would warrant their removal from service.”
The complainant insisted
that the “respondents’ continued stay in office might prejudice the cases
filed against them – which are grounds for placing respondents under
preventive suspension” pursuant to Section 9, Rule III of the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman,” a document signed by Fr. Labendia
of Isog han Samar Movement stated.
It added that: “There is an
urgent need to suspend respondents in order to prevent them from using their
public positions to raid the provincial treasury, thereby sparing the people
of Samar from further suffering and misery.”
But in her counter-motion
last November 2005, Governor Tan, through her counsel, opposed the motion
for preventive suspension on the following ground that:
“All the acts and
transactions complained of occurred during the first term of herein
respondent, which began on
June 30, 2001 and ended on
June 30, 2004. By her
reelection in May 2004 to her second term, which began on June 30, 2004, her
administrative liability, if any, has been effectively extinguished.”
The governor argued that
whatever administrative liability she may have incurred during her first
term, “is extinguished in accordance with the well-established rule laid
down by the Supreme Court.”
The governor’s motion quoted
one statement from the SC previous decision stating, “Offenses
committed, or acts done, during previous term are generally held not to
furnish cause for removal and this is specially true where the Constitution
provides that penalty in proceedings for removal shall not extend beyond the
removal from office and disqualification from holding office to which he was
elected. The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other
terms and 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 therefrom.”
“It is respectfully prayed
that complainant’s motion for herein respondent to be preventively suspended
be denied for of lack of merit,” the governor, through her counsel said.
To recall, Gov. Tan has also
recently asked the Ombudsman to dismiss the two “scandalous cases” filed
against her saying it was a “premature, groundless and in blatant violation”
of her constitutional right due to the process of filing done by her
complainant.
Gov. Tan said the motion for
reconsideration she filed before the Commission on Audit relative to the
2004 Audit Report has not yet been resolved.
“Because the said motion has
not yet been resolved to date, the filing of this case is premature,
groundless, and in blatant violation of my constitutional right to due
process,” Gov. Tan said in her March 29, 2005 counter-affidavit which she
executed in Quezon City and subscribed and sworn to before notary public
Dulcisimo G. Hinanay Jr.
Gov. Tan supported her
argument by citing Sections 8 & 9 of Rule V of the COA Revised Rules of
Procedure, which states the rule on “motion for reconsideration” and
“interruption of time to appeal.”
Meanwhile, the case stemmed
after the Isog han Samar Movement has accused and filed plunder charges to
Gov. Tan together with her co-respondents members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan by using their official positions, authority and influence to,
among others:
“Procure P29.34 million
worth of goods without, or in violation of the rules on, public bidding as
prescribed by Articles 356 to 365, title six of the Local Government Code
and the Rules and Regulations on Supply and Property Management in Local
Governments;
Make ‘repeat orders’ of
supplies worth P28.165 million which were 5 to 11 times the cost of the
original orders in violation of COA Circular No. 92-386;
Make ghost or anomalous
emergency purchases of relief goods and medicines totaling P14.1 million,
particularly 5, 900 sacks of rice plus 4, 500 boxes of canned goods and food
items, in four business days, under the guise of a dubious state of
emergency; and procure medicines worth P14.20 million under similar
anomalous circumstances.”
The documents of these
transactions were reportedly “exposed” by former General Service Officer now
administrative officer of the Samar Provincial Hospital Aurelio “Jun” A.
Bardaje Jr., and GSO Record Officer and Inspector Numeriano C. Legaspi who
later on turned state witnesses.
To date, the office of the
Ombudsman has yet to release its decision if there was, indeed, a prima
facie evidence of the allegations filed against Gov. Tan and her
co-respondents. If, indeed, there is strong evidence, the Ombudsman may file
an endorsement and the case will be heard before the Sandiganbayan in
Manila.
Governor Mila Tan