Rectal surgery scandal: Missing board members delay pre-trial at PRC-7

CEBU - The scheduled pre-trial before the Professional Regulations Commission of the canister video scandal did not push through yesterday after the counsel of the complainant questioned the validity of the proceedings in the absence of members from the Board of Medicine.

Lawyer Guiller Ceniza, counsel of Genaro “Jan Jan” Jorolan, said the rule requires the board to be present during every hearing and investigation of the case.

Jorolan filed an administrative complaint last July 7 against the doctors, who performed the controversial rectal surgery on him last January 3.

The administrative complaint was filed before the PRC7 asking the commission to strip the doctors involved of their licenses.

The surgery was performed at the Don Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (DVSMMC) and a video of the procedure found its way to the web and was spread through the popular video uploading website www.youtube.com.

Charged are Dr. Angelo Alinawagan, assistant surgeon during Jorolan’s operation; Dr. Joseph de Leon, a member of the surgical team and the person-in-charge of the documentation of the operation; Dr. Max Joseph Montecillo of the DVSMMC’s Department of Surgery; Dr. Phillips Leo Arias, surgeon in charge during the operation; and Dr. Marlowe Parreno, the consultant of the Department of Surgery.

Ceniza said hearing officers from PRC7 must have a delegated authority if the hearing would be done without at least one member from the board.

PRC7 Officer-in-Charge lawyer Dan Malayang said they’ve been conducting hearings without representative from the board ever since.

The hearing could have pushed through had Jorolan’s counsel agreed to proceed without the board.

Malayang said it’s either the hearing’s venue will be transferred to Manila or the board will come to Cebu.

He said it is still vague, who will arrange for the transportation of the board since the government does not prioritize such spending.

Ceniza said they are only asking the commission to make sure of their authority to decide over the case even without fully complying with the rule. He said they don’t want to be questioned in the future to avoid delays in resolving the case.

Ceniza said they will file a motion to declare defendant in default.

He said that other matter questioned was the timely filing for the trial which was filed later than required. —Jessica Ann R. Pareja/NLQ (THE FREEMAN)