SC upholds Bulacan mayor’s suspension

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the order of the Office of the Ombudsman placing San Miguel, Bulacan Mayor Edmundo Jose Buencamino under six-month suspension without pay for abuse of authority.

In a seven-page decision promulgated last April 12, the SC’s first division dismissed Buencamino’s petition that his suspension be not implemented as he argued that the Ombudsman violated the Ombudsman Act of 1989 by ordering his suspension while his appeal was pending.

Buencamino claimed that the Ombudsman ordered his suspension on Jan. 23, 2006 even when he had filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals (CA). The appellate court eventually denied the motion on Dec. 29, 2006.

Buencamino further claimed that the suspension order was "not immediately executory," and that the CA "gravely abused its discretion" by denying his application for a preliminary injunction. The CA, however, granted his petition for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 17, 2006.

Buencamino’s suspension stemmed from a graft complaint filed by Constantino Pascual, president of Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. which is engaged in marble quarrying, with the Office of the Ombudsman on Aug. 27, 2004.

In his complaint, Pascual said Buencamino demanded payment, without any official receipt, of a "passway" or regulatory fee of P1,000 for every truck that would pass through San Miguel town.

Buencamino, however, said such a regulatory fee was imposed pursuant to an ordinance enacted by the San Miguel municipal council.

However, Pascual argued that the provincial board disapproved the municipal ordinance for abuse of authority.

He also argued that the Local Government Code of 1991 does not empower any municipality to impose tax on delivery trucks of mining companies passing through its jurisdiction.

In its decision, the Ombudsman declared Buencamino administratively liable for abuse of authority and suspended him from office for six months without pay.

"Clearly, considering that an appeal under Administrative Order No. 17, the amendatory rule, shall not stop the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman from being executory, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s application for injunctive relief," the SC said. – With Abigail Orencia and Maricor Lawig