Thursday, May 29, 2008 Ombud to check Fiscal Castro’s orders
ASSISTANT Cebu City Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro has evaded the public eye ever since word came out last January that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline found her guilty in a disbarment case.
But with her recent appointment as assistant alien control officer, the most written-about lady prosecutor in Cebu has once again appeared as a bleep in the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas’ radar.
So much so that Deputy Ombudsman Pelagio Apostol has instructed staff members at the anti-graft office to prepare a dossier on Castro and find out what happened to all suspension orders the agency issued against her before his term.
Apostol’s instruction, in turn, is in response to a text message that an unidentified person sent while Apostol was a guest on a live radio talk show over radio dyLA yesterday.
“I’ve heard that she was able to secure a restraining order against the suspension orders before the Court of Appeals. But restraining orders from the appellate court
expire,” Apostol said in an interview after the program.
Limits
Castro called the program’s anchor supposedly to interact and said she was able to secure injunction orders. The call, however, was made after the program had ended.
But even if Castro was able to secure injunction orders, none have been sent to the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.
“We should have a copy,” said Dr. Belle Quijano, the anti-graft agency’s corruption prevention officer.
Apostol, however, admitted that the anti-graft office will comply if the appellate court has made the suspension permanent.
He also said that the anti-graft office is rendered powerless if the restraining order issued comes from the High Tribunal.
Among the suspension orders issued against Castro is for her May 23, 2003 administrative conviction for misconduct.
The case stemmed from her alleged act of receiving money a defense lawyer offered in exchange for “going easy” on the motion for bail submitted by the accused in a drug case.
The Court of Appeals nullified the anti-graft office’s suspension penalty after Castro filed a petition for certiorari that cited how, based on the Tapiador ruling, the Office of the Ombudsman does not have the authority to suspend officials beyond a month.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) immediately contested the appellate court’s ruling, saying the Tapiador ruling was merely something the High Tribunal said in passing and, so, does not have the legal value of jurisprudence.
The High Court, in Barillo v. Gervasio, Office of the Ombudsman v. CA and Balbastro v. Junio, later clarified that the anti-graft office does enjoy the authority to directly impose penalties.
It is not known if the penalty was revived after the prohibition set in the Tapiador case got revised. (KNR)
