Ombud denies Cruz, et al appeal

By Nora Soriño,
Iligan City Bureau Chief,
Nene Lachica and
Sita Asequia,
Correspondents

ILIGAN City — The Office of the Ombudsman has denied former mayor Lawrence Cruz’s motion to reconsider its decision to bar him from holding public office for life.

The decision was signed by Anna Francesca M. Limbo, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III and was approved by Conchita Carpio-Morales on Dec. 22, 2016.

Although the decision was dated Dec. 22  — a copy of which was obtained by Gold Star Daily — Jose Pantoja, city information officer, said City Administrator Dexter Rey Sumaoy received it only last Thursday (Feb. 2).

To recall, the Ombudsman, in a July  13, 2016 decision, slapped former mayor Lawrence Cruz  and 11 others with an order of dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public office for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Also included in the decision are former Vice Mayor Ruderic Marzo,  ex-councilors Providencio Abragan, Jr, Riza Jane Magaro, Jose Zalsos, Frederick Siao, Marlene Young, Ariel Anghay, Michelle Sweet Booc, Bayani Areola, Roy Openiano, and Moises Dalisay, Jr.

Sumaoy, who filed the case, said the decision stemmed from city hall’s lease of a two-hectare property in Camague which is owned by the Lluch family. The property in question is the site of a terminal for south-bound public utility vehicles.

In 2004, a contract was drawn by the Lluch family owned Kiwalan Lumber for the lease of the Camague property with the approval of the city council then.

Sumaoy said the then mayor Cruz had a conflict of interest since Cruz is among the heirs.

Marzo, in his motion dated August 1, 2016, disputed the finding of probable cause against him because the investigator “was biased against the respondents and committed serious irregularity prejudicial to the interest of respondent Marzo when she did not dismiss the complaint outright.”

Marzo further argued that the condonation doctrine effectively exonerated him from liability and that the “lack of public bidding does not necessarily mean that a contract is disadvantageous to the government.”

However in his consolidated comments, Sumaoy refuted that there is “no clear proof”  that there was an “an emergency situation in 2004, 2008, and 2013 which compelled (them) to set aside the requirements of RA 9184.

“There was never an intention to conduct competitive bidding,” said Sumaoy adding that not one of the respondents tried to correct the irregularity surrounding the lease agreements and the respondents continued to renew the agreement without the benefit of a public bidding in the subsequent agreements.

For its part, the Ombudsman ruled that it the respondents’ motion had no merit.

The Ombudsman also ruled that there was no emergency situation and that the respondents’ failed to specifically attribute acts of the investigator to prove the existence of bias.

“As to the Condonation Doctrine, the Supreme Court has already abandoned this doctrine, citing cases of it,” the ruling reads.

The respondents, the Ombudsman ruled, are no longer holding public office except for Siao, who is currently the city’s lone district representative.

“This Office took cognizance of the case against him. It is settled though that once acquired, it is never lost until the case is terminated. Thus, this Office cannot be ousted from jurisdiction simply because Siao was elected from a different office in May 2016,” the Ombudsman ruling reads.

In his earlier statements, Siao said he plans on taking other legal remedies like going to the Court of Appeals.