The Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea
 
The Ombudsman Case of Gov. Tupas
 

A case for Violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) was filed in the Office of the Ombudsman against then Iloilo Gov.  Niel Tupas in 2004.

 By that time, the Iloilo Airport of International Standards is undergoing construction and the need for sand and gravel is a must.  Applicants for the contract to supply the above needs are in queue at the Capitol.

But the lucky awardee to quarry the above items in the Municipality of Maasin, surprisingly waive his right just after only one year in favor of the father-in-law of now Vice Governor Raul ‘Boboy’ Tupas.

On how the case has risen from that transfer of right to quarry, we have yet to know about the details. But as easily noticed, it is about money on why the governor was slapped with that case at the Office of the Ombudsman.

But that is not only what we are looking for. The case filed against then Gov. Tupas seems to have disappeared in the course of time. We heard nothing more after it was reported to have been filed already.

It holds true why Ilonggo lawyer Atty. Romeo Gerochi calls the office of the Ombudsman “Office of Monalisa.” The song Monalisa claims many dreams of obsessed men have been brought to her doorstep, but they just lie there and they die there!

Surprisingly, the case filed in 2004, suddenly resurrected in 2014. The governor was ordered by the Ombudsman to file his counter-affidavit. My goodness, I don’t think this Ombudsman business is all about!

In Rafael L. Coscolluela, Petitioner, v. Sandiganbayan First Division and People of the Philippines, Respondents, a complaint filed at the Office of the Ombudsman in 2001 was acted and filed at the Sandiganbayan only in 2009.  (G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2014)

On July 9, 2009, Coscolluela filed a Motion to Quash,12 arguing, among others, that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges against him were resolved only after almost eight (8) years since the complaint was instituted.

The Court Ruled that the petition is meritorious. A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) which provides:

SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. This right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases.

Be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked with administration of justice.

This is what got me so excited about. The case of Coscolluela stayed for eight (8) years only while the one in Gov. Niel D. Tupas has slept for ten (10) years in the Office of Mona... ehe, este Office of the Ombudsman. The law says “it is not the accused’s duty to follow up the prosecution of his case. It is the duty of the State!

I think this case will end into a Stare Decisis – Court stands firmly by things that have been decided on cases with similar facts and have been resolved in the past. Well, I hope to have made your day in this column. Monalisa has asked for it, unlike Dirty Harry and me who ask others to make our day!