Hole of Justice: The Basis of Blasphemy

Hole of Justice: The Basis of Blasphemy: Hole of Justice by Peter G. Jimenea   The Basis of Blasphemy! I hope Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales exercises a proper mon...

The Basis of Blasphemy

Hole of Justice

by Peter G. Jimenea

 

The Basis of Blasphemy!

I hope Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales exercises a proper monitoring of her people as we have no guarantee that when former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez stepped down, all crooks have gone with her. The new Ombudsman pompously aired sending to jail all corrupt officials involved in the "Napoles List." But she forgot what she did to the case of the failed Iloilo City Housing Project in Pavia, Iloilo. The story that has consumed the public for years seems not good for her Court.

Cases for Violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) against the oncerned officials of the project were filed at her office in 2004. But they slept at the Office of Monalisa ehe, este OMB Gutierrez for over five years that an Ilonggo lawyer Atty. Romeo Gerochi toyed her in the song "Monalisa," which lyrics say; "many dreams have been brought to your doorstep, they just lie there and they die there."

After Ombudsman Monalisa ehe, este Ombudsman Gutierrez resigned in 2010, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro wrote a decision with a hand-written date to Visayas Deputy Ombudsman Pelagio Apostol indicting former Mayor Mansueto Malabor, et al., while still groping in the dark for a probable cause against then Mayor Jerry Trenas (now congressman) and wards who implemented the project.

This is what got us so badly disillusioned. Even a fish vendor can say the continued unauthorized payments to the contractor despite the discovered substanddard materials used in the construction and the urgent unanimous-resolutions of the City Council urging the mayor to suspend the project, rescind the contract and sue the contractor is already embraced in RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Unfortunately, the Office of the Ombudsman is also empowered to exercise a selective approach to prosecution. The curse of Pontius Pilate is easily gleaned in the case of; Office of the Ombudsman v. De Sahagun. The Court held that the period stated in Sec. 20 (5) of R.A. No. 6770, is not a prescription but discretion of the Ombudsman to investigate a particular offense or not. This is another thing that got us so disgusted about.

The provision is construed as the permissive and operating authority to confer discretion. The Court consequently added; "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.” Deliberate or not, this empowerment of the Ombudsman to delay the investigation of an offense committed by a senior public official creates an impression without affirming the perception that it could only be done in exchange for - you know what!

The November 11, 2012 decision of the Ombudsman after review by Dir. Virginia Palanca Santiago and recommended for approval by Apostol to Ombudsman Morales, was immediately signed by the latter. Whether Morales has inadvertently overlooked some glitches in the hand-written decision of Casimiro, ony God knows. But we erred in believing that God sent her to "right the wrong." Instead, she approved to rest the case, pushing futher the complainants in the brink of insanity and endangered the taxpayers to become the last casualty!

It reads; “The Information accusing Jerry P. Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019 as amended, for causing the release of the P43,807,733.33 for construction works of the ICHP in Pavia, Iloilo, DESPITE REPORTS THAT SUBSTANDARD MATERIALS WERE USED IN THE PROJECT AND DEFECTS, DEFICIENCES AND LAPSES IN THE WORKS WERE NOTED, is hereby SET ASIDE.” Oh no, despite the residual imperfection their will was done!

My God, SET ASIDE? Nothing follows? Sec. 26, of the Ombudsman Act of 1987 dictates; “the Ombudsman shall receive complaints from any source in whatever form concerning an official act or omission. That, "it shall act on the complaint immediately and if it finds the same entirely baseless, IT SHALL DISMISS THE SAME and inform the complainants of such dismissal citing the reason thereof.”

Well, if they can’t find probable cause why not absolve the suspect offenders? Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely than not, a crime has been committed. It demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence that would justify indictment. The unauthorized payment of P43M plus by the mayor to the contractor already violates RA 3019. What more can they ask?

When we say unauthorized payment, this can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense had been committed and the substance is enough for an indictment. But if the case filed is baseless, and the Ombudsman finds no reason against the mayor and wards, why not DISMISS the case immediately? Why SET ASIDE only? Are they ashamed of the consequences? Evil, it can only be!

This may be extreme as a conclusion though, but the dangling of the decision for over five years has created an erroneous suspicion that the Office of the Ombudsman is run by human beings too, who may easily yield to temptation of greed. They should know that it is only for them and the government crooks that what they did is good. They only reinforced the public misperception that our government had been overrun by crooks!

Lowly Ombudsman employees are most sorely tempted to steal but don’t, what a shame. But shameless officials can tolerate brave words to save face. What is somewhat missing in the empty lives of these peoplew is to die with dignity. Their cheating of taxpayers' money is injustice en-masse,' a crime that cries to God for vengeance. Whether they accept it or not, their deliberate misgivings to the taxpayers' money is now a scroll  that forms.……see the title!