ILOILO City – Mayor Jerry Treñas won’t investigate aides named in a letter alleging corruption at city hall.
According to Treñas, the letter sent by a certain “Juan dela Cruz” and signed with a whimsical signature composed of three stars and a sun was “fake.”
The letter named the following city government officials close to the mayor: executive assistants Francis Te, Fernando Rico and Mathilde Treñas-Octavio, and City Budget Officer Ninda Atinado. An unnamed official at the Assessor’s Office was also mentioned.
Treñas’ reaction to the letter was in complete contrast to when he received an earlier “Juan dela Cruz” letter accusing city civil registry office head Romeo Caesar Manikan Jr. of corruption.
Treñas did not explain how he came to the conclusion that the second letter targeting his aides was fake and the first one that targeted Manikan for registration of alleged fake marriages was genuine.
The city mayor right away sent Manikan a Show Cause Order to answer the allegation in the first “Juan dela Cruz” letter.
“You know ang ini ya nga ulihi (letter) tan-aw ko no…daw tanan na lang mapadala ‘Juan dela Cruz’. Ti ang point, kasal to ya nga fake. Fake gid to ‘ya,” said Treñas.
The second “Juan dela Cruz” letter challenging Treñas to investigate his aides made the following allegations:
* on Te – a city hall supplier who does not follow specifications in purchase requests
* on Rico – engaged in infrastructure construction using the license of MVG; in return, they just pay three percent for the use of the license and get 20 percent of the contract amount as “SOP”
* on Atinado – a big-time money lender to city hall job hires; job hires pressured to borrow money from her
* on city assessor’s office official – accepting bribes in exchange for lesser assessment fee for house improvements/repair or re classification
* on Octavio – there is a pending investigation already on transactions in the Iloilo City College as college administrator
Part of the letter read: “Mayor this is a slap on you face…They doesn’t (sic) deserve our taxes nga i-sweldo sa ila…act on this…Mayor you should lead by example.”
Te, Rico, Atinado, Octavio, and the unnamed city assessor’s office official could not be reached for comment as of this writing.
Meanwhile, answering Treñas’ Show Cause Order, Manikan stressed there was no basis to impose disciplinary action on him.
Manikan said the “white paper” (Juan dela Cruz letter) in the city chief executive’s possession was “spurious, fictitious and clearly manufactured…masquerading as a letter-complaint.”
He pointed out that the complaint was “absurdly signed” with a “patently fictitious and ridiculously whimsical signature.”
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.
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.
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./PN
