Kalinga town mayor, two execs suspended for a year; For alleged fund misuse and ghost projects

August 15, 2018 Headlines

BAGUIO CITY – The Office of the Ombudsman suspended Rizal, Kalinga Mayor Marcelo dela Cruz Jr. and two of his department heads for a year without pay after finding them guilty of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service over government fund misuse and ghost projects.
In a 20-page ruling by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on June 26, 2018, Mayor dela Cruz, municipal budget officer Delia Damasco Jacob and municipal accountant Rodelia Baquiran Busacay were also meted the accessory penalties pursuant to Sections 46(b)(8) and 45(d)(2), Rule 10, in relation to Section 49(a) and 50 of the Revised Rules on administrative cases in the Civil Service and Section 10, Rule 3, Administrative Order No. 07 as amended by AO No. 17 in relation to Section 25 of Republic Act 6770.
Carpio-Morales just retired on July 26, 2018.
The Ombudsman stated that in the event that the ruling cannot be enforced due to their separation from service, the penalty shall be converted into a fine in an amount equivalent to their salary for six months payable to the Ombudsman and may be deductible for their retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivables from their office.
The secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) is tasked to implement the decision immediately upon receipt of the ruling pursuant to Rule 3, Section 7 of AO No. 7 as amended by other rules and regulations.
While the complaint for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, dishonesty and grave abuse of authority against Vice Mayor Renato Vicente and Sangunniang Bayan members Cheradee A. Beligan, Samuel C. Valdez, Pablo C. Cadang, Benjamin R. Barroga and Reynaldo B. Cauresma engineering assistant Noel Jambaro, municipal treasurer Nancy Vicente Revocal, municipal planning and development coordinator Cynthia Agustin Vicente and municipal engineer and bid and awards committee chairman Aurora Cudal Cuaresma were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
The Ombudsman ruled that there is substantial evidence to hold Mayor dela Cruz, Jacob and Busacay liable for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, however, no substantial evidence exists to hold them liable for grave abuse of authority and dishonesty.
Earlier, the Rizal municipal council approved Resolution No. 2015-127 which resolved to revert the unexpended balances of appropriations from the 2015 annual budget to the unappropriated surplus of the general fund in the amount of P14.5 million and authorized its utilization for the rehabilitation of various barangay streets and farm to market roads on December 7, 2015.
But on November 14, 2016, the Commission on Audit (COA-Cordillera) noticed in its Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. Rizal 101-2016-008 that the funding and awarding of five infrastructure projects pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-127 were not valid and legal because the guidelines on the changes and reversion of annual budget were not followed.
The COA-Cordillera also found out that the town council’s resolution was passed without any certification from the local finance committee on the details of the utilized appropriation; the manner by which the unexpended balances of appropriation was re-appropriated was not valid because it was passed through a resolution and not by an ordinance; the infrastructure projects authorized and funded by the resolution were not supported by a supplemental nor an amended annual investment plan; and based on their records, the municipality deliberately did not request for inspection of the completed infrastructure projects despite the fact that almost all of which were gravelling, which should have been subject to inspection before spreading out to assess actual existence of aggregates.
Though the Rizal municipal government submitted several documents to argue against the COA’s findings but the COA-Cordillera maintained its position that the re-appropriation of P14.5 million was unauthorized and all disbursements charged were disallowed in audit.
Complainants Frank Wad-asen, Rogelio Lawad, Ponz Anthony Orodio and Robert Echalar asserted that Mayor dela Cruz and municipal budget officer Jacob and municipal accountant Busacay misappropriated the public funds and that they have personally visited some of the project locations and saw no indication that the infrastructure projects were implemented.
Moreover, the public officials were said to have violated Section 3 of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by passing a mere resolution and not an appropriation ordinance, to revert the unexpended balances of the appropriations of the 2015 annual budget to the general fund which in turn led to the funding of the five infrastructure projects and the subsequent illegal disbursement and use of public funds.
The complainants also claimed that the public officers refused to grant their request for documents pertaining to the five infrastructure projects violating their constitutional right to information on matters of public concern.
Mayor dela Cruz and the other officials however retorted that the complaint of Wad-asen, Echalar and Orodio were tainted because the trio had an axe to grind because they were found guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty in an administrative case filed by dela Cruz.
The town mayor also claimed, although the COA-Cordillera ultimately found the disbursements for the infrastructure projects unauthorized, such finding is not yet final and still subject to review; the reason why an appropriation was not passed in the case is because the 2015 annual budget of the municipality was not yet passed.
Dela Cruz further argued that without the enactment of the annual budget, neither can a supplemental budget nor an appropriation ordinance be enacted and the assailed resolution is already a sufficient authorization for the questioned disbursement.
Although the Ombudsman asserted that dela Cruz, Jacob and Busacay clearly transgressed the guidelines set forth in Article 322 and 344 of RA 7160 considering that being the municipality’s accountable officers at the time, it is but reasonable to expect that they have knowledge of the procedure on appropriations and allotments which is part of their shared responsibility.
The ruling further stressed the act of dela Cruz, Busacay and Jacob can only be considered as unlawful or at the very least grossly negligent in the discharge of their duties and obligations as public officers, thus, warranting administrative sanctions.
Though according to the Ombudsman, such sanctions should only be for simple and grave misconduct as there is no showing that the elements of corruption are present or that there was willful intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules on the part of the public officers.
The decision further claimed that such misconduct of dela Cruz and his department heads tends to tarnish the image and integrity of their office, thus, administrative sanctions for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the serve is warranted in the case.
A simple misconduct carries a penalty of suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and conduct prejudicial to the best interest is penalized with a suspension of six months and one day to one year suspension for the first offense.
Mayor dela Cruz was also suspended earlier for 3 months after he was found guilty of misconduct for allegedly disbursing public funds to pay the cash gift and incentives to casual employees and barangay officials of Rizal without the passage of an appropriation ordinance. ACE ALEGRE / ABN