BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The Court of Appeals (CA) has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the preventive suspension of eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) members of Antique, which was imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The six-month preventive suspension was initially ordered in August due to the officials’ alleged failure to pass a supplemental budget amounting to P1.075 billion for the province.
In a resolution dated Nov. 7, the CA’s Fourth Division issued the TRO, effectively ordering the reinstatement of the board members pending further proceedings.
The decision temporarily prevents the Ombudsman from implementing its suspension order, allowing the provincial board members to resume their duties.
“Considering that the possible prejudice or damage caused to an electorate which is summarily deprived of its duly elected representatives is not susceptible to pecuniary estimation, it then ineluctably follows that the suspension of an elective official, if done so without basis, constitutes an irreparable injury which could be the proper subject of a TRO,” read the nine-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Louis Acosta.
In issuing the TRO, the appellate court emphasized the “possible grave and deleterious effects” that the suspension of the eight provincial board members could have on Antiqueños.
Recognizing the potential disruption to governance and public services, the CA chose to act cautiously, temporarily halting the Ombudsman’s suspension order to prioritize the stability of the provincial government.
“To reiterate, herein petitioners are elective provincial officials of the Province of Antique who were charged with grave misconduct, oppression, and gross neglect in the performance of duty which may warrant their removal from office,” the CA noted.
In his five-page order dated Aug. 1, Ombudsman Samuel Martires suspended the board members for six months without pay as the anti-graft office is investigating the officials for 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 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.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Barangay Bontol, Sibalom captain Rey Ventura and Steph Jules Siblag, president of Amazing Youth Antique, before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.
They accused the provincial officials of committing 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, the complainants said the board members deliberately delayed taking action. The respondents reportedly boycotted their session to deliberate the budget last June 3, 2024.
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.
Instead, according to the complainants, the respondents reportedly deleted the proposed allocation, 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 by the respondents deprived about 200 barangays and 15, 000 households in the Antique 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.
TRO PETITION
In their petition for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the eight Antique provincial board members argued that their suspension violated their right to due process. They claimed that the Ombudsman issued the suspension order without providing them a copy of the Verified Complaint-Affidavit or an opportunity to respond.
According to the board members, the lack of a formal chance to address the allegations and explain their side rendered the suspension baseless and procedurally unjust.
They also contended that the Ombudsman’s suspension order constituted a grave abuse of discretion, depriving them of their right to fulfill their elected roles under the Local Government Code.
They argued that the suspension effectively prevented them from exercising their mandate, amounting to a significant infringement on their rights and responsibilities as public officials.
The board members also argued that the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order lacked any clear basis, reinforcing their stance that the suspension was unwarranted.
According to the petitioners, without justifiable reasons to support the suspension, the action unjustly targeted their right to due process and their ability to serve their constituents, thus underscoring the need for legal relief through the TRO.
The board members further asserted their “clear and unmistakable right” to carry out their duties as elected officials, emphasizing that any suspension—whether intended as a preventive measure or as a penalty—would unjustly deprive the electorate of their chosen representatives. They argued that removing them from office would not only violate their rights but also undermine the will of the people who voted them in.
The board members argued that the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order, issued hastily, has barred them from participating in discussions on a P765-million budget for three items in Supplemental Budget No. 1, which the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had previously disapproved of.
They contended that the suspension not only undermines their duties but also hampers essential budgetary decisions affecting the province.
In addition to seeking a preliminary injunction for their immediate reinstatement, the board members requested an injunction directing the Provincial Board to pause any deliberations or approvals of the P765-million budget until the issue is resolved.
They expressed concern that enforcing the suspension would irreparably damage their reputations and public standing, emphasizing the long-term impact of such an order on their professional image and integrity.
In its ruling, the CA emphasized the potential harm to the electorate of Antique if the suspension of the board members proceeded without clear justification.
The court noted that if the charges against the officials were later found to lack merit, the people of Antique would have been unjustly deprived of their duly elected representatives, resulting in an irreparable injury to the democratic process.
On this basis, the CA decided it was prudent to pause the Ombudsman’s August 1, 2024 suspension order. Additionally, the court ordered the Antique Provincial Board to refrain from acting on the three disputed budget items in Supplemental Budget No. 1 until the board members could be reinstated.
It also ordered each of the board members to post a bond of P100,000 within five days of receiving notice of the resolution. Failure to post the bond within this timeframe would automatically revoke the CA’s resolution.
The CA instructed the provincial board to halt any further deliberation or approval of the P765 million budget for the three disputed items in Supplemental Budget No. 1 until the board members’ reinstatement.
The court further required private respondents Rey O. Ventura and Stephen Jules S. Siblag to file a Comment (not a motion to dismiss) in response to the petition and to provide reasons why the petitioners’ request for a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) should not be granted, with a deadline of ten days from receiving notice.
Moreover, counsel for Ventura and Siblag was directed to promptly inform the CA of any updates within the same ten-day period./PN