THE Commission on Elections has dismissed the two disqualification cases against PDP-Laban gubernatorial candidate Gwen Garcia. There is no more legal impediment to her running for office.
The decision was expected. It is also a wise one. Why should someone be barred from running on the basis of a decision that is not yet final? The constitutional intent to democratize the base for elective public office applies to everyone including those with pending cases. We should not limit the voter’s choices.
If the people elect Garcia even if they know that she is facing both criminal and administrative charges, that is their right and their will should be respected. Garcia knows the risk she’s taking in running: if her perpetual disqualification from public office is upheld with finality, she will have no choice but to step down and neither she nor the voters can complain that she has been robbed of their mandate.
Note the phrase, “with finality.” It’s the end to a case; there are no more appeals available to the party aggrieved by the decision. That was how decisions were viewed in the past. They cannot be given effect until they become final and executory.
The “final but already executory” rule that applies to decisions of the Ombudsman is a legal aberration that has succeeded only in creating confusion. Take the case of Garcia. She was charged for hiring a contractor to backfill a portion of the controversial Balili property without a Provincial Board resolution authorizing her to do so.
The Ombudsman found her guilty and ordered her dismissal and perpetual disqualification from holding any public office, whether elective or appointive. Garcia appealed the decision but the Ombudsman wanted her dismissed immediately. Luckily for Garcia, the House speaker refused to heed the Ombudsman order.
Sadly, luck has not been on the side of many other public officials who were put in the same situation as Garcia. They had to vacate their office even if it has not yet been determined by the higher courts, on an appeal, that the decision was correct.
In a case involving a Cebu-based regional director whom the Ombudsman dismissed for sexual harassment, the Supreme Court found nothing wrong in enforcing an appealed decision. This is pursuant to the Rules of Procedure that the Constitution allows the Office of the Ombudsman to formulate, according to the court.
Addressing the issue on how a dismissed official can recover his financial losses in the event that he wins his appeal, the Court said that he can be considered as having been preventively suspended and shall be entitled to backpay.
Unfortunately, the decision does not state how the political damage occurring as a result of the immediate enforcement of the accessory penalty of disqualification can be repaired if the official or employee is eventually absolved on appeal.