Ombudsman bars Ampatuan scion from ever holding government post

By Cong B. Corrales,
Associate Editor

FOR lying to the government “willfully,” the Office of the Ombudsman has barred one of the principal suspects of the grisly Am-patuan Massacre from holding any government post, ever.

In a press advisory, dated July 30, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered Zaldy Ampatuan to be stripped of his capacity as governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (Armm).

However, Ampatuan has long been replaced as Armm governor with the appointment of Mujiv Hataman in 2011. To this, the Ombudsman imposed an alternative penalty of fine equivalent to his salary as governor for one year.

Under the order, Ampa-tuan’s civil eligibility has also been cancelled and barred from taking any civil service examinations; his retirement benefits forfeited, and he can no longer hold any public office.

“Governor Ampatuan was found administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct in connection with his willful failure to disclose his assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 2000 to 2009,” Carpio-Morales’ order reads in part.

A scion of the late Ma-guindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr., Zaldy is currently being detained at Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig City for his alleged part in the bloodiest electionelated violence now known as the Ampa-tuan Massacre on November 23, 2009.

“Based on the Ombuds-man’s lifestyle check investigation, it was established that Ampatuan failed to disclose 14 real estate properties worth P12,336,416.90 located in Davao, Cotobato and Makati city. Ampatuan also failed to declare his ownership of 15 vehicles amounting to P25,476, 116.00 and 26 firearms worth P5,914,000.00,” the press advisory reads.

The Ombudsman also found out the total amount of Ampatuan’s properties was “grossly disproportionate to his lawful and legitimate income” in his eight years in public office.

“Respondent (Ampatu-an) not only failed to disclose all his and his wife’s assets but he also failed to provide any explanation as to how he and/or his wife acquired these assets.

An honest public servant will have no difficulty in gathering, collating and presenting evidence that will prove his credibility, but a dishonest one will only provide shallow excuses in his explanations,” the Ombuds-man’s order reads in part.

Under Section 8(a) of Republic Act 6713, public officials and employees must accomplish and submit a sworn statement of their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests.