Hole of Justice: The Dismissed 19 PNP Officers

Hole of Justice: The Dismissed 19 PNP Officers: Hole of Justice by Peter G. Jimenea The Dismissed 19 PNP Officers On June 02, 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed nineteen (19) top PNP...

The Dismissed 19 PNP Officers

Hole of Justice

by Peter G. Jimenea

The Dismissed 19 PNP Officers

On June 02, 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed nineteen (19) top PNP officials from service due to the P5M rubber-boat scam. Among them are S/Supt. Cornelio Salinas, Director of the Iloilo Provincial Police Office (IPPO) and also former IPPO Dir. C/Supt. Reynaldo Rafal.

THE CASE. In 2009, the PNP National HQ issued a resolution for the procurement of watercrafts for the Maritime Goup. A budget of P5M was approved for 20 units. By that time S/Supt. Salinas was then with Maritime Command (MARICOM).

As I cannot contact Salinas, I called C/Supt. Rafal who had been a Director of Logistics Support Services (LSS) on March 31, 2010. He claimed the delivery of the boats was on March 22, 2010, at least a week before he assumed his Directorial post.

As the LSS Director, he said to have signed the Disbursement Voucher because all certifications were properly attached to it, the inspection, acceptance, availability of funds, accounting office certification, etc. But it is not his duty to personally check the boat in Navotas Pier.

To check the delivery, the bidding process and selection of supplier is the duty of the Maritime Group, a separate unit as mandated by the NHQ, PNP Maritime Group. Contrary to report, those are not rubber-boats but boats made of fiberglass reinforced by lumber and marine plywood with bamboo outriggers (katig).

He said the Maritime Group created the BAC, conducted the bidding and select the supplier. There was no indication of possible problem at that time since the deal was worth P4.5M while the approved ABC (budget of the contract) is P5M. So although the boats were reduced in number from 20 to 16, the government has saved P.5M.

When the rubber-boats were delivered and inspected on March 22, 2010, according to the Ombudsman, they found the following defects; 1). No oil pressure and water temperature gauges, a speedometer and other essential parts of a rubber boat uninstalled. Hence, a case was filed against all people involved in the deal.

Like Rafal, S/Supt. Salinas is a dedicated police officer in service. But the Ombudsman knew nothing about them. She has only that large propensity to act based on raw intelligence data to prosecute than to praise government employees.

According to C/Supt. Rafal, he was never interviewed personally by any graft investigator on this case. He was only required to file his counter affidavit and yet, he was also dismissed like the other top PNP officers without proper investigation of his involvement.

The Ombudsman has failed to promote efficient service as provided for in Sec. 13 of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. It failed to use properly its investigatory and prosecutor powers to inquire and obtain information sufficient to support a resolution.

Why run after the police officers for the P4.5M anomaly and ordered only to set aside the P137M Iloilo City Housing Scam of Liberal Party stooges in the city? Are cases against administration crooks not good for the Court?

Look at the length of time spent by the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate this P4.5M alleged rubber-boat anomaly. Baloney! Five years has caused prolonged anxiety to litigant-police officers whose future and that of the family were forcibly tied to litigation.

Summum jus, summum injuria – extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice. Good that the Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic Constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the extremely abusive investigative and prosecutor powers of the government. (Berico vs CA, 225 SCRA 562).

In G.R. 191411, Coscolluela vs. Ombudsman, the Court reprimanded the Ombudsman for deliberate delay in resolving cases. It is their responsibility to expedite the case within the bounds of reasonable time in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

As pronounced in the case of Barker v. Wingo: A defendant has no  duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. And a conduct of proper investigation is one. Due to delay, the cases against Coscolluela et al. were eventually dismissed.

Ombudsman’s reliance on raw intelligence data is bad. It is only for lazy graft-investigators and government crooks that what she did is good. See the injustice to police officer for that P4.5M mess? What about the DAP and PDAF of crooks in billions when the SC says these are unconstitutional?

Why is she so silent about it? Let us presumed she is not bias but who are the indicted administration allies? Just don’t make the family of the dismissed police officers hungry or someday they will run amuck. Remember, a hungry stomach knows no law!

Hole of Justice: Ombudsman Raw Intel Data

Hole of Justice: Ombudsman Raw Intel Data: Hole of Justice by Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Raw Intel Data In 2009, the PNP National HQ issued a resolution for the procure...

Hole of Justice: Ombudsman Raw Intel Data

Hole of Justice: Ombudsman Raw Intel Data: Hole of Justice by Peter G. Jimenea The Ombudsman Raw Intel Data In 2009, the PNP National HQ issued a resolution for the procure...

Ombudsman Raw Intel Data

Hole of Justice

by Peter G. Jimenea

The Ombudsman Raw Intel Data

In 2009, the PNP National HQ issued a resolution for the procurement of watercrafts for the Maritime Goup. A budget of P5M was approved for 20 units and a bidding was held but failed, hence, the procurement by administration.

On 2010, instead of 20 units at pegged price of 250,000 each, the PNP paid to the supplier Four Petals Trading a P4.5 million for the 16 units of watercrafts costing 312,000 each. The reduction of four units gave the MARICOM a savings of P.5M as reported.

When the rubber-boats were delivered and inspected on March 22, 2010, the Ombudsman found out the following defects; 1). No oil pressure and water temperature gauges, a speedometer and other parts essential to a rubber boat. A case was filed against all people involved in the deal.

On June 02, 2015 a consolidated decision was promulgated dismissing nineteen (19) top PNP officials from service due to involvement in the P5M rubber-boat transaction. One is S/Supt. Cornelio Salinas, Director of the Iloilo Provincial Police Office (IPPO).

S/Supt. Salinas is widely believed a dedicated police officer in service and a good leader by example for subordinates who are lucky to wear the police uniform they are so proud of. But the Ombudsman seemed to have overlooked the real details of the investigation report.

The P4.5M watercrafts are not rubber-boats as described in the news report. They are made of fiberglass, reinforced by lumber and marine plywood with outriggers (katig) made of bamboo. And the mentioned other lacking parts are not that essential to install.

Beside which, some of the police officers linked by the Ombudsman were not personally interviewed by graft-investigators as to veracity of the anomaly reported. They were only required to file counter-affidavits, nothing more.

The Ombudsman has failed to promote efficient service to the people as provided for in Sec. 13 of RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989. It failed to use its investigatory and prosecutor powers to inquire and obtain information to institute and implement measures.

Why run after the police officers forP4.5M anomaly and skipped the P137M Iloilo Housing Scam of the administration stooges in the city? Are cases against administration crooks not good for theOmbudsman Court?

While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed, the Supreme Court (SC) is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman action when there is an abuse of discretion. (Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, 278 SCRA 769).

Just look at the length of time spent by the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate this P4.5M alleged rubber-boat anomaly. The five years has caused prolonged anxiety to the litigant-police officers and have tied their assets and other properties to litigation.

But the Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic Constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the extremely abusive investigative and prosecutor powers of the government. Summum jus, summum injuria – extreme enforcement of law may lead to injustice. (Berico vs CA, 225 SCRA 562).

In G.R. 191411, Coscolluela vs. Ombudsman, the SANDIGANBAYAN SECOND DIVISION reprimanded the Ombudsman that it is their responsibility to expedite the case within the bounds of reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

As pronounced in the case of Barker v. Wingo: A defendant has no  duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. Due to delay it ordered to dismiss the case against Coscolluela et al.

Omb Conchita Carpio Morales should not rely on raw intelligence data of her people. It is only for her lazy investigators and the real crooks that what she did is good. The law says; “it is safer to err in acquitting than in punishing.” Now can she feel the agony of this injustice to the rightful police officer?