ILOILO City – There is no basis to impose disciplinary action on him, according to Local Civil Registrar Romeo Caesar Manikan Jr.
Responding to the show cause order of Mayor Jerry Treñas on the registration of alleged fake marriages, Manikan said the “white paper” in the city chief executive’s possession was “spurious, fictitious and clearly manufactured…masquerading as a letter-complaint.”
“It certainly did not warrant the kind of attention of a very busy city mayor, much more the issuance of a show cause order,” read part of Manikan’s response to Treñas.
He pointed out that the complaint was even “absurdly signed” with a “patently fictitious and ridiculously whimsical signature composed of three stars and a sun.”
Clearly, according to Manikan, it should be dismissed outright even as he denied the allegations raised.
Dated July 1, 2019 from a certain “Juan Dela Cruz”, the “white paper” asked the mayor’s office to investigate Manikan.
According to the complainant, there was connivance between certain city hall employees and Hall of Justice employees to make money from fake marriages (unauthorized solemnizing officer).
The complainant further claimed: “These marriages have not registered through the marriage bureau of the Hall of Justice, and has not paid the solemnization fee required.”
Manikan argued he could not even be considered a “respondent” because there was no valid complaint filed.
He described what Treñas had as a mere scrap of paper not deserving of the mayor’s attention nor a response from him as that would tantamount to requiring a government employee to submit a verified answer to a hearsay.
He listed the following “fatal flaws” of the complaint:
* not signed by any living person (certainly, the signature does not officially exist)
* the complainant’s identity could not be ascertained to a reasonable degree
* not verified or sworn/under oath
* personal knowledge of the sender has not been/cannot be established
* impossible to establish the veracity of any statement
* hearsay/speculation
* there are no specifics as, but not limited, to which marriages were being referred to, who were the parties, how many marriages, what were the dates, who received it at the CCRO (City Civil Registry Office), and numerous other details
* no supporting documents / evidence of any kind
“Thus, such ‘white paper’ does not merit due course,” said Manikan.
He also stressed that in law, marriages / certificates of marriage / marriage contracts / licenses are presumed valid and accorded the presumption of regularity of official functions by public officers, “not just during the solemnization and recording thereof, but likewise, during the registration thereof with the CCRO.”
This, Manikan added, is the reason for existence of a civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage based on alleged lack of authority of the solemnizing officer as provided under the Civil Code of the Philippines, the Family Code of the Philippines, and the 1997 revised Rules of Court.
“It must also be stressed sir, that it is elementary in law and jurisprudence, and among legal practitioners, including yourself, that sanctions for celebrating marriages without the appropriate authority are directed at the person committing the said acts, and not upon the undersigned, the personnel and/or staff, of the CCRO,” Manikan stressed.
He also reiterated that his duty at the CCRO to register all certificates of marriage presented is “ministerial.”
According to Manikan, giving attention to the “white paper” is a form of “harassment, oppression, misconduct, abuse and a violation of the appropriate provisions of Republic Acts No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices) and No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
The issuance of the show cause order, stressed, did not comply with and/or violate the mandatory and express provisions of law and jurisprudence on entertaining anonymous complaints./PN
