Misrepresentation

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea
 

Misrepresentation

 

The Director of the National Library filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, against Lily,  her Asst. Director, for Violation of RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.

 

The case stemmed from dishonesty of Lily when she declared in her bio data that she had been a consultant of the National library from March 2003 to 1999 and attached it to her application seeking the position of Assistant Director of the National Library in 1996.

 

After investigation, it was discovered that Lily merely held the position from Mar. 1, 1993 to December 1994. She, however, asserted that the bio-data was inadvertently attached to her application for Asst. Director of the National Library without initial or signature in 1996.

 

A Graft Investigation Officer I of the Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner not guilty of the offense charged and dismissed the case for lack of merit. Upon review by the Office of Legal Affairs, it found Lily guilty of dishonesty and dismissed her from government service.

 

Lily sought recourse before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57158, arguing that:

1.      The honorable Office of the Ombudsman, through its office of the Chief legal counsel, erred in holding that it had the requisite jurisdiction to act on the complaint  for an act committed three years ago and the petitioner is not within the scope of applicability of RA 6770;

 

On  August 11, 2006, the CA denied the instant petition and the assailed Memoranda dated October 21, 1999 and January 5, 2000 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-99-0517 are AFFIRMED.

 
Hence the Petition, Lily argues that the CA erred when it ruled that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over administrative case filed three years ago. And before her entry into government service, nobody has even shown interest over it.

 

SEC. 21, Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive government officials including its agencies and instrumentalities except over members of Congress and the Judiciary who may only be removed by impeachment.

 

SEC. 20, Exceptions.  The Ombudsman “may” not conduct the investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that the complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act of omission complained of.

 

But in Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun, the Court held that the period stated in Section 20 (5) of R.A. No. 6770 does not refer to the prescription of the offense, but to the discretion given to the Office of the Ombudsman on whether it would investigate a particular administrative offense or not.

 

The use of the word "may" in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, they must be given their literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation

 

SEC. 46.(18), Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides.... Discipline: General Provisions. (b), even if the dishonest act was committed by the employee prior to entering the government service, such act is still a ground for disciplinary action.

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Lily’s petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 11, 2006 and Resolution dated October 23, 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 57158, are AFFIRMED. (SC Third Division. G.R. No. 175115 : December 23, 2009)cha

fice of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-99-0517 are AFFIRMED. Cha