Cebu’s Garcia cited for indirect contempt

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has cited outgoing Cebu Gov. Gwen Garcia for indirect contempt for allegedly defying a suspension order issued against her in April.

In a nine-page resolution, the ombudsman imposed a fine of P30,000 on Garcia as a penalty for her “clear case of resistance and disobedience” to the anti-graft agency.

The ombudsman said Garcia’s acts constitute “improper conduct tending to impede or degrade the administration of justice.”

“It’s time to draw the line and hold you accountable for your contumacious defiance of the lawful authority of the Office of the Ombudsman. This action is taken not only to vindicate the dignity and authority of the Office of the Ombudsman, but also to serve as a notice to those who may harbor the same conceit or delusion – that the Ombudsman’s orders can simply be disregarded or treated with impunity,” the resolution read. 

In a statement, Garcia questioned the ombudsman’s resolution, saying a temporary restraining order (TRO) has been issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) on her suspension.

“By citing me for indirect contempt, is Ombudsman (Samuel) Martires insisting that he does not respect the TRO issued by the Court of Appeals?” Garcia asked. “Is he now challenging the CA? Does this mean he is not respecting the temporary restraining order?”

She said media outlets have reported that the ombudsman has filed a motion to quash the TRO, which means the anti-graft body acknowledges the existence of the TRO.

In April, the ombudsman suspended Garcia for six months for granting a special permit to a quarry operator  without requiring an environmental compliance certificate and other documents.

She did not heed the order and instead sought a TRO before the CA, which granted her appeal on May 15.

The ombudsman directed Garcia to explain why she should not be cited for indirect contempt for not obeying the suspension order.

Garcia argued that the TRO allowed her to remain in her post and continue performing her duties.

The ombudsman debunked Garcia’s argument, saying the suspension order was immediately executory and the TRO is not retroactive. 

Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the ombudsman said a preventive suspension is usually made immediately executory to prevent interference in the investigation, such as influencing potential witnesses and tampering with records. 

 The ombudsman said Garcia’s refusal to comply with the suspension order disrupted the orderly administration of justice and infringes upon the constitutionally protected powers of the Office of the Ombudsman.