It’s not surprising that the same set of facts giving way to the same or similar incidents may result in varying reactions or effects. Too often as well that the reactions could be so manipulated, or purposely tailored in a feigned pattern, to cover-up possible, if not inevitable, discomfort or embarrassment.
Germane to this situation was the outright dismissal of five serious administrative charges – dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and culpable violation of the Constitution – against Mayor Jonas Cortes earlier filed by six opposition city councilors. Although these charges were summarily dismissed, like a shaky, unsteady kite with a tail, the Palace meted the uncalled for sanction of reprimand.
Oddly, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita in acting for the President as personal parens patriae of government personnel, appeared to have said to the respondent: “You are exonerated as I have dismissed the five cases, but still I have to admonish you”. For want of legal or jurisprudential leg to stand on, or even common sense, it is a typical political “accommodation” decision, perhaps to please a political figure behind it.
Basically, the courts are very strict, as en strictissima juris – in following the law and jurisprudence that any accused or respondent can not be found guilty of an offense or wrong unless formally charged. It is a fixed rule that one is not answerable for any malfeasance or misfeasance for which there has been no formal charge against the respondent. Such element of “due process” can not be abridged.
In fact, administrative bodies also pay fealty or fidelity to such fundamental principle. The Civil Service Commission in administrative cases under its jurisdiction adheres to that tenet as has also been upheld by uniform jurisprudence. Hence, why did the Palace deviate from it? To stress, it’s as if Secretary Ermita condescendingly ruled: “You are innocent of the charges but I’ll have just to tweak your nose, flip your ears, and flick your wrist”. Does Malacañan have no knowledgeable lawyer?
The respondent’s camp was reportedly “pleased with (the) Palace decision”. City Administrator Briccio Boholst allegedly “expressed gladness that all charges… did not prosper” as the Palace reversed the DILG recommendation to suspend Mayor Jonas Cortes for one year. Okay, but why the “reprimand” that is not germane to the dismissed charges and, without formal charge for “dereliction of duty”?
Definitely, that uncalled for “tail” of the decision has no legal basis. Also, while it’s just a tweak of the nose, it besmears the respondent’s records. Besides, “dereliction”, as failure or neglect of duty has its own legal or administrative definition, and can not just be cavalierly tacked to the dismissed charges as basically intentional offenses. How can there be dereliction of duty by the Mayor when his action against the city ordinance had been sustained by the DBM which ruled that the sections providing an “enabling resolution” in the approved budget was invalid or without effect. In short, the Mayor’s official action had legal and jurisprudential grounds, that is, in budgetary matters, the role of the legislature is to approve or disapprove the budget or certain items thereof, not to put conditions to shackle the executive.
Thus, one is quite sure that by now, the Mayor through his legal staff could have already filed the necessary motion for reconsideration on the “reprimand” sanction to put things right.
On the other hand, the reaction of VM Carlo Fortuna (“Carlo sneers at reprimand”) is too predictable. While he considers the “reprimand” as too light, he is also smarting from the dismissal of the 5 charges. In fact, lacking elementary courtesy for the Mayor as his wont, he sneers at the issue as “a glaring sign of his incompetence” and threw as well the aspersion of “ignorance of the law”. Look who’s talking, simply because the executive and legislative branches have had differences of opinion!
* * *
Email: lparadiangjr@yahoo.com