Ombudsman files criminal charges vs Jonas Cortes

Ombudsman files criminal charges vs Jonas Cortes
Mandaue City Mayor Jonas Cortes. (File photo)
Published on

THE Office of the Ombudsman has found probable cause to file criminal charge against dismissed Mandaue City mayor Jonas Cortes for allegedly violating Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

In a 13-page resolution, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Leilani Tagulao-Marquez found enough evidence to charge Cortes for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

The Ombudsman has filed the case in court.

The resolution on the criminal complaint was released on Sept. 26, 2024 — the same day that the Ombudsman issued a decision regarding the administrative case filed by complainants Ines Corbo Necesario and Julita Narte on Oct. 17, 2022, concerning Suprea Phils. Development Corp. (Suprea), a cement batching plant. The decision on the administrative case resulted in the dismissal of Cortes.

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman dismissed the other criminal charge, violation of Section 3(f) of RA 3019, against Cortes, citing “insufficiency of evidence”

SunStar Cebu obtained a copy of the resolution on the criminal charges on Friday, Oct. 11.

City Administrator Jamaal James Calipayan, in an interview over Facebook Messenger, confirmed that they received a copy of the resolution on Friday.

He said this is an expected move of Cortes’ opponents.

“With this, it is a clear act of political persecution. They do not only want to eliminate mayor Jonas as a rival of the 2025 elections, but to threaten his freedom,” Calipayan said.

“We will of course seek all available remedies, and fight this case till the end. We assure the Mandauehanons that we will continue to surge against this until justice will prevail,” he added.

Background

Necesario and Narte’s complaint stemmed from Cortes allowing the continued operation of Suprea in Sitio San Jose 1, from 2020 to 2022, despite its lack of a business permit, sanitary permit, and environmental clearance.

Suprea’s operations allegedly posed health risks and disturbances to those living close to the plant’s perimeter. However, Cortes allegedly refused to issue a cease and desist order (CDO) against Suprea and allowed the batching plant to continue operating its business.

Complainants alleged that respondents, acting with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and gross inexcusable negligence, caused undue injury to the complainant who suffered from the air and noise pollution caused by Suprea’s operation.

Cortes said he acted based on scientific findings from the Mandaue City Environmental and Natural Resources Office and the Office of the Punong Barangay of Labogon, which did not recommend issuing a CDO.

Cortes added that he acted on the complaints by issuing a mission order to inspect the activities inside the premises of Suprea.

Resolution

However, the Ombudsman found Cortes’ explanation “unworthy of weight and credence.”

The Ombudsman, acting on the allegations of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, said evidence presented in the case indicates that Cortes acted with evident bad faith and gross negligence by allowing Suprea to operate without the required permits from 2020 to 2022.

“There is sufficient evidence that respondent (Cortes) committed violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 under the second mode, i.e., by giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference, and not by the first mode which is causing undue injury to the government or any party,” reads a portion of the resolution.

Section 3(e) of RA 3019 provides that “causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence” shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are declared unlawful.

The Ombudsman added that Cortes, as a public official, is accountable for upholding the law and protecting the welfare of his constituents.

“He has a duty to act, but he deliberately chose not to act”, the resolution stated.

The Ombudsman dismissed the separate charge against Cortes under Section 3(f) of RA 3019 due to insufficient evidence. / CAV

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph