THE Office of the Ombudsman has upheld its administrative ruling against former Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, denying her motion for reconsideration.
The decision, dated Aug. 29, 2025, affirms a previous finding of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and simple misconduct.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by private citizen Moises Garcia Deiparine, who accused Garcia of several violations.
The Ombudsman’s investigation focused on her issuance of a special permit for a river desilting project in Mananga River, Talisay City, which was part of the province’s effort to address a severe water crisis.
According to the Ombudsman, the permit was granted without the required environmental compliance certificate (ECC) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Garcia’s defense
Following the denial, Cabrido and Associates Law Firm, Garcia’s legal counsel, issued a statement on Tuesday, Sept. 23.
The firm said the Ombudsman’s ruling was incorrect and that their motion raised new matters, including the exculpatory Doctrine of Necessity.
“It must be clarified, however, that contrary to the Ombudsman’s ruling, Gov. Gwen Garcia raised new matters therein, including the invocation of the exculpatory Doctrine of Necessity, which were not originally part of the case,” Cabrido and Associates said.
Garcia’s camp also said the desilting activity was carried out to address the severe water shortage experienced by Cebuanos during the long drought caused by the El Niño phenomenon from late 2023 to mid-2024.
They added that they are preparing to file a petition with the Court of Appeals to challenge the suspension order.
Ombudsman’s ruling
The Ombudsman’s initial decision, issued on July 16, 2025, found Garcia guilty of two administrative charges but acquitted her of others, including grave abuse of authority and gross dishonesty.
The penalty was a one-year suspension without pay.
Because Garcia’s term as governor ended on June 30, 2025, the suspension was converted into a fine equivalent to six months of her basic salary.
Denial of reconsideration
In her motion for reconsideration, Garcia argued that her actions were justified under the Doctrine of Necessity, citing the water crisis in Cebu.
The doctrine is a legal principle that allows an otherwise unlawful act to be deemed lawful if it is the only way to prevent greater harm.
Garcia also said she relied on the recommendations of multiple government agencies, including the DENR and the Department of Public Works and Highways.
However, the Ombudsman’s special panel of investigators found no new evidence or legal errors in her motion.
The Aug. 29 order stated that Garcia’s arguments merely reiterated points already considered and resolved. It also noted her implied admission that an ECC had not been secured for the desilting activity. (CDF)