THE Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed criminal charges against former Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia and a contractor over the desilting of the Mananga River in Talisay City, a protected waterway under the Central Cebu Protected Landscape.
The ruling, issued on Aug. 29, 2025, and approved by Acting Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante Vargas on Sept. 10, 2025, effectively clears Garcia of graft allegations linked to her actions during Cebu’s El Niño-driven water crisis.
What was the complaint about
The case began with a complaint filed on April 21, 2025, by Moises Garcia Deiparine, who accused Garcia of granting Shalom Construction Inc. a special permit to extract sand and gravel from the Mananga River without securing an environmental compliance certificate (ECC), or a certificate of non-coverage from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Garcia, then governor, issued Special Permit 2024-09 to Shalom Construction on May 14, 2024, authorizing desilting and extraction activities in the river. She earlier said that the move was an emergency measure to address Cebu’s worsening water shortage at the height of the El Niño phenomenon.
What did the Ombudsman decide
In a 25-page resolution, the Ombudsman found no probable cause to charge Garcia and Shalom Construction’s representative Anthony James Limchesing with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The anti-graft office ruled that while Garcia failed to ensure compliance with environmental regulations — specifically the absence of an ECC — there was no evidence of corrupt intent, undue injury or personal benefit. The decision said her actions were done in good faith in response to a legitimate emergency, not for private gain.
What about the administrative case
Earlier, the Ombudsman had found Garcia administratively liable for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. A preventive suspension order was issued on April 29, 2025, for six months over allegations of grave abuse of authority and gross misconduct.
However, the suspension was never implemented after Garcia sought guidance from the Department of the Interior and Local Government and later obtained a 60-day temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals’ Special 17th Division.
When Garcia’s term ended on June 30, 2025, the one-year suspension penalty was converted into a fine equivalent to six months of her salary. Garcia appealed, invoking the “doctrine of necessity” to justify her actions as part of an emergency response. On Sept. 23, the Ombudsman denied her appeal, saying the allegations lacked legal and factual basis but reaffirming that no corrupt intent was established.
How did Garcia respond
In a statement issued Wednesday, Oct. 22, Garcia expressed gratitude to the Ombudsman for what she described as a “fair and judicious decision.”
“Deiparine was merely a hapless pawn used by more powerful forces obsessed with politically harming me,” she said. “Now he will have to face the consequences of his misdeed. Truth and justice will always prevail.”
Garcia maintained that the desilting was conducted in coordination with concerned government agencies and was intended solely to address the province’s water shortage, not as a commercial quarrying operation. She had earlier called the Ombudsman’s administrative decision “misinformed,” insisting she acted within her powers as governor and in good faith.
What’s the larger takeaway
The Ombudsman’s twin rulings — administrative and criminal — draw a clear boundary between procedural oversight and criminal corruption. Garcia was faulted for failing to complete environmental requirements but was ultimately cleared of graft for lack of intent to misuse authority or gain from the project.
The case underscores the tension between emergency governance and regulatory compliance, showing how public officials must weigh urgency against environmental and legal safeguards. / EHP