Provincial Board to amend probe rules anew

CEBU, Philippines- The Cebu Provincial Board is amending its rules and procedures governing investigation of administrative cases filed before the body.

The board yesterday passed in second reading the proposed ordinance amending its house rules. Among the changes are in the provision that deals with the form and notice of the PB’s decision. If the ordinance is enacted, it would already require the body to put into a resolution its approval or disapproval to the recommendation or report of its investigating committee.

“Once the committee report or recommendation is approved by the PB through a resolution, it would then constitute the decision of the PB as a whole,” the proposed amendment read.

The original provision only stated that the “Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall render a decision in writing, stating therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision,” which spawned technical issues, including the one raised by suspended Dumanjug Mayor Nelson Gamaliel Garcia.

Hinging on the original provision, Garcia earlier assailed the decision of the PB suspending him for six months over grave abuse of authority, saying that what the body implemented was a “resolution” approving the findings and recommendation of its investigating committee and not a “decision”.

He contended that a resolution cannot be executed as a decision, thus, his suspension is invalid. He made an appeal the PB’s decision which is still pending before the Office of the President.

Board Member Arleigh Sitoy, chairman of the PB Committee on Complaints and Investigation, during the deliberation of his proposed ordinance yesterday, explained that the amendment was only made mainly to ensure speedy disposition of cases by preventing a party from employing "delaying tactics," and preservation of justice and the rule of law. He added that they also sought advice from their consultant lawyers on the matter.

As of second quarter this year, the PB had to resolve at least 18 complaints involving elected officials. Further, the rules would also mandate respondents to file verified answer to the complaint within 15 days from the service of the notice to answer.

It would also prohibit pleadings and motions such as motion to dismiss, motion for a bill of particulars, motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of either interlocutory or final order, motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or “any other paper,” motion to declare the respondent in default, demurrer to evidence, and motion for postponement.

The house rules were also amended in January this year.  (FREEMAN)