[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’AN INDEPENDENT VIEW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY NEIL HONEYMAN
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
MAYOR Jed Patrick Mabilog’s net worth, as stated in his 2013 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), was P68 million. In 2012, his net worth was P59 million. The gain of P9 million during 2012-2013 seems to irk the Ombudsman’s office.
Outrageous, when his legitimate income, and that of his wife, was nowhere near P9 million.
Not outrageous at all. The gain is 15 percent which is well within what one can expect from judicious investments. In a good year we can expect such an appreciation from the stock market or from property.
In Mabilog’s case, his SALN data is used by the Ombudsman to assert that he is guilty of corruption unless he can prove himself innocent. This is not the cornerstone on which our legal system is based.
The role of the Ombudsman was first enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. It was designed to be an independent entity, free from political or other pressures. Many of us welcomed the creation of the Ombudsman’s office which was originally implemented in Denmark, a country which regularly scores extremely highly in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.
Article XI Section 13 of the Constitution describes the Ombudsman’s powers, functions, and duties. The Ombudsman can investigate “Any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.” (Section 13[1]).
We therefore expect the Ombudsman to focus on whether or not Mabilog misused his office. This aspect was included in the complaint against Mabilog for “grave misconduct relative to the appointment of executive assistant Patrick Allan Sy and the mayor’s business Iloilo One Esplanade Realty.” The Ombudsman did not uphold this complaint due to a lack of sufficient evidence. In fact the Ombudsman did not find that Mabilog failed in his duties as mayor.
The issue as to whether the mayor misused his position in order to benefit his business is, of course, one that needs to be addressed.
In 1994, I lived in a city in which old and new taxis competed for the same business. Suddenly, the old taxis were withdrawn from service due, allegedly, to an edict from the mayor. The rumor was that the mayor had a 35 percent stake in a local taxi firm and benefitted from the edict.
Name of the Firm: Holiday Taxi
City: Davao
Mayor: Rodrigo Roa Duterte
It is not clear to me that the Ombudsman’s decision to sack Mabilog is well-founded or independent of external pressures./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
