Ombudsman upholds brgy head's suspension

The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a barangay captain it suspended for six months for simple misconduct.

The Ombudsman earlier suspended Luzviminda Amarilla, barangay captain of Tajo, Pinamungajan town, following an administrative complaint filed by couples Loreto and Cristita Fajardo, Celso and Precy Cañizares, Raul and Jenisa Regino, and Marino and Jenalyn Verano who claimed that Amarilla committed nepotism when she appointed members of her family to work in her office.

Amarilla admitted to have appointed nine relatives, including her daughter, son, brother, nephews, and in-laws, as barangay tanods. But she said their appointments were not covered by Executive Order No. 292 -which discouraged nepotism- since it only applies to appointments made in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments.

This was affirmed by the Ombudsman, citing the Local Government Code, which supplements EO 292, stated: "No person shall be appointed in the career service of the local government if he is related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to the appointing or recommending authority."

With this, graft investigator Mona Chica Gillamac, in her decision dated April 20, 2005, said Amarilla "could not be held liable for nepotism."

But Gillamac saw that Amarilla violated Memorandum Circular No 2002-150 of the Department of Interior and Local Government which provides that the appointment of barangay tanods or lupon members are "to be concurred by the sangguniang barangay and the appointees should possess all the qualifications as provided by law."

Gillamac found Amarilla guilty of misconduct because the appointments of her relatives were "in contravention" of the memorandum.

Amarilla then filed a motion for reconsideration, saying there was no legal basis to hold her liable for violating the DILG memorandum, as she extended the appointments of her relatives before the circular was implemented.

But Gillamac, in her four-page order dated September 12, said the date of DILG circular is "not determinative of the effectivity of the policy it outlines or indicates," as it has long been there since the Local Government Code took effect in 1992. - Liv G. Campo