Tuesday, April 03, 2007 Suspension of Ted, Boy stays By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter With Allan I. Varquez
MANDAUE City Mayor Thadeo Ouano and Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Arturo Radaza remain suspended from holding office.
In separate resolutions, the Court of Appeals denied their petitions for temporary restraining order to stop the enforcement of the preventive suspension order the anti-graft office issued against them and 17 other public officials.
The appellate court also ordered the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and the Department of Interior and Local Government to submit their comments—20 days for Ouano’s pleading and 10 days for Radaza’s.
The Office of the Ombudsman ordered the suspension for six months without pay while it looks deeper into the allegedly overpriced lamps and streetlights bought for the Asean summit last January.
Some 2,300 lamps and streetlights were purchased for P365.87 million. These were put up in the cities of Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu. Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu prepared the program of work and estimates for the purchase.
Acting Deputy Ombudsman Virginia Santiago, in a separate interview, said she expected the ruling and there is no more legal impediment preventing the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) from enforcing the suspension.
She said the DILG regional office has until tomorrow to enforce the suspension or the agency becomes potentially liable for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
She said they gave the DILG a copy of the order for enforcement last Thursday yet.
The anti-graft office also tried serving Ouano, Radaza and the 17 other impleaded officials their copy of the order as “notice.”
Under the law, Santia-go said, it is the DILG that implements suspension orders on local government officials because the agency must ensure that the suspension does not cause a vacuum in office.
As to commenting on the main petitions, Santiago said a division of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Manila-based Office of Legal Affairs, headed by Director Sylvia Beltran, will take care of that.
Police help
In a separate interview, DILG 7 Assistant Director Pedro Noval said he will seek the police’s assistance when he will the suspension order on Ouano and Radaza.
“I understand Ouano’s supporters, but they have to understand that a law is a law and DILG will enforce the suspension regardless of the situation,” Noval said.
He and Director Rene Burdeos were in Manila yesterday for an important meeting.
DILG 7 Legal Division Chief Danilo Almendras confirmed that they already received the directive from the Office of the Ombudsman to enforce the six-month suspension on the two mayors.
The Civil Service Commission, meanwhile, warned that Mandaue City Hall employees who did not report for work last Friday and yesterday will not get any pay.
The employees may also face an administrative investigation, CSC 7 Assistant Director Edith Lozano told Sun.Star Cebu.
Almendras said DILG will also check if elected officials were involved in the human barricade in front of City Hall last Friday to stop the agency from serving Ouano the suspension order.
The Court of Appeals Special 18th Division, meanwhile, found no reason to issue a temporary restraining order for Ouano. Associate Justices Francisco Acosta, Arsenio Magpale and Stephen Cruz signed the three-page resolution.
The appellate court’s Special 19th Division also found “no cogent and compelling reason to issue the same,” based on Radaza’s petition.
Associate Justices Cruz, Isaias Dicdican and Pampio Abarintos signed resolution.
Lawyer Stephen Ygnacio, acting assistant clerk of court of the CA, said the parties still have remedies available if they are dissatisfied with the ruling.
When asked by reporters, he said they can either seek that remedy from the CA itself or go higher to the Supreme Court in Manila.
Ouano and Radaza separately filed their petitions before the CA last Friday.
Substantiate
They asked that the anti-graft office be made to substantiate its claim that the evidence of their guilt is strong and that their preventive suspension is required.
Ouano cited politics in his petition and argued that his suspension gives “undue advantage to (his) political opponents, especially during the onset of the election season.”
Joined by City Engineer Hidelisa Latonio, Gregorio Omo, Alfredo Sanchez, Mario Gerolaga and Rosaline Denque, all members of the Mandaue City Engineer’s Office, Ouano decried how the anti-graft office acted with “grave abuse of discretion” and maintained that there is “no justifiable reason and strong evidence” against them.
They said that if the purpose of the suspension is to preserve the evidence and prevent it from being tampered with, then the suspension serves no purpose.
They argued that the anti-graft office already has the only document of importance to the case—the program of works and estimates that they submitted to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
For his part, Radaza, in the petition filed by City Attorney Vicente Lim described the suspension order as “atrocious, arbitrary, highhanded and shocking.”
The mayor, along with City Engineer Julito Cuizon and Assistant Engineers Rogelio Veloso and Fernando Tagaan, said the suspension causes “irreparable damage” despite being based on the “erroneous” assumption that the “findings of evidence is strong.”
They asked the appellate court to “wield its sword of justice in favor of petitioners and against the respondents.” In treating Ouano’s petition, the Special 18th Division had to issue two rulings.
First, in a resolution promulgated at 10:30 a.m. yesterday, the CA noted that the petition did not come with a certified true copy of the order. The court dismissed it outright.
Ouano’s camp, after hearing of the dismissal, submitted a supplemental petition with a copy of the order attached and, in another pleading, filed a motion for reconsideration against the 10:30 a.m. order.
Associate Justices Acosta, Magpale and Cruz immediately resolved the issue and, four hours and 30 minutes after the first ruling, came out with a second resolution that granted the motion for reconsideration.
They ordered the Office of the Ombudsman and the DILG to file their comments on the petition in 20 days, but denied the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The Special 19th Division came out with its ruling on Radaza’s petition 35 minutes after the Special 18th Division held its promulgation. (With EOB)
