8 ANTIQUE PROV’L BOARD MEMBERS SUSPENDED; Ombudsman investigates ‘inaction’ on capitol’s P1.075-B budget

BY GEROME DALIPE IV

ILOILO City – The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the preventive suspension of eight Antique Provincial Board members who face complaints for their alleged failure to pass the province’s supplemental budget amounting to P1.075 billion.

In his five-page order dated Aug. 1, Ombudsman Samuel Martires suspended the board members for six months without pay while the anti-graft office is investigating them over the following specific complaints: oppression, grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross neglect of duty.

“This Office finds sufficient grounds to preventively suspend herein respondents considering that there is strong evidence showing their guilt,” read Martires’ order.

The anti-graft office emphasized that suspension is necessary since the charges involve offenses that may warrant dismissal from the service such as grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross neglect in the performance of duty.

Under the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Ombudsman or his deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong,

In a legal sense, a preventive suspension is not a penalty, but a precautionary measure taken to prevent officials from using their positions to influence the investigation of charges against them and to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry.

The suspended Board Members are Victor Condez, Alfie Jay Niquia, Mayella Mae Plameras-Ladislao, Rony Molina, Egidio Elio, and ex-officio members Kenneth Dave Gasalao, Julius Cezar Tajanlangit, and Plaridel Sanchez IV.

During their session yesterday, some suspended Provincial Board members announced that they would heed the Ombudsman’s suspension order.

“Even though we wanted to serve, we were preventively suspended by the Ombudsman. We hope that our colleagues will uphold what is good for the welfare of our province, and not abuse and persecute,” the respondents said.

This is the first time in Antique’s political history that eight of the provincial legislators have been simultaneously preventively suspended.

Under the Local Government Code of the Philippines, if multiple board members are suspended, the vacancies may be filled by appointees approved by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to ensure continuity of governance.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Bontol, Sibalom, Antique’s Barangay Captain Rey Ventura and Steph Jules Siblag, president of Amazing Youth Antique, before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. They accused the respondents of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross neglect under the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for their alleged refusal to perform their duties as provincial legislators.

In April 2024, Gov. Rhodora Cadiao submitted the province’s supplemental budget of P1.075 billion. Instead of conducting a hearing on the proposed budget, there was a deliberate delay to take action, the complainants claimed.

The June 3, 2024 session to deliberate the budget was allegedly boycotted.

Among the objections the respondents raised was the proposed allocation of P190 million to buy solar systems for the eight hospitals. This is despite the letter from Department of Energy Undersecretary Sharon Garin, who told the Provincial Board that the allocation was sourced from the 80 percent national wealth tax to be used by any local government unit.

According to the complainants, the proposed allocation was reportedly deleted, resulting in the reduction of the province’s share from the proceeds derived from the development of the hydrothermal and other energy sources to less than 80 percent to supposedly lower the cost of electricity.

Such acts deprived about 200 barangays and 15, 000 households in the Antique of solar system, the complainants lamented.

In the order, Ombudsman Martires pointed out the respondents’ suspension is needed, saying their continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation of the case filed against them.

“There is a need to preserve the documents and evidence about this case which they may have control and custody, and to avoid their commission of further malfeasance and misfeasance in office,” stated Martires./PN

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here