|
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
Castro to include Pedrosa in charge
By Karlon N. Rama
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
WITH the first of the three suspension orders covering a total of 12 months recently imposed on her, Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro struck back yesterday.
Her target: City Prosecutor Jose Pedrosa, whom she faults for having implemented the suspension order despite questions on whether he had the authority to suspend a co-presidential appointee.
She filed an amendment to the petition for certiorari she earlier brought before the Court of Appeals to question the legality of her suspension. She wants Pedrosa included among the respondents.
‘Not friends’
Castro and Pedrosa have not been on friendly terms since Pedrosa, last May 28, implemented the May 23 suspension order on her for allegedly receiving P10,000 in bribe money from lawyer Gines Abellana in exchange for going easy on the Giovannie “Nanan” Gimenez case.
Immediately after the suspension order was served, Castro wrote a memorandum “urging” her superior to recall the implementation of the suspension or “be held responsible for an illegal act.”
But Pedrosa is unfazed by the idea of being impleaded in Castro’s petition, saying: “She can do whatever she wants under the law.”
He, however, admitted to being sore over Castro’s comment that he, in imposing the suspension order, is one with the anti-graft office in “acting like gods.”
Pedrosa said Castro is “for all intents and purposes under suspension.”
He disclosed that even her allowance, which was supposed to be released yesterday, was withheld.
As to the other two suspension orders, Pedrosa did not want to comment.
The anti-graft office recently imposed a six-month suspension on Castro for allegedly meddling in a case already submitted to the court.
Two days ago, the ombudsman again ordered her suspended for three more months for intervening in a private business transaction between a surplus vehicle store and her (Castro’s) brother, and using the PNP Special Weapons and Tactics team in trying to intimidate the complainant.
No Law
In her petition for certiorari, Castro stressed that the anti-graft office does not have the authority to suspend officials beyond a month, so the suspension order against her, which covers three months, is not final and executory.
The anti-graft office also cannot bank on any law that it is allowed to immediately impose a suspension lasting over a month against any public official.
Castro cited the Supreme Court in its ruling in the Gov. Manuel “Lito” Lapid vs. the Court of Appeals case.
The ruling stemmed from the anti-graft office’s order suspending the Pampanga governor for a year.
(June 4, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here.
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
