Ombudsman seeks dismissal of Villa-Ignacio

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman recently recommended to Malacañang the dismissal from government service of Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio for alleged dishonesty and for betraying the public trust.

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, in a three-page supplemental order dated Jan. 29, 2010, said Villa-Ignacio’s act of concealing that the Supreme Court once reprimanded him when he applied for the position of Ombudsman in 2005 constitutes a “betrayal of public trust.”

The order recommending Villa-Ignacio’s dismissal was issued just two weeks before the end of his seven-year term as special prosecutor on Feb. 14, 2010.

Villa-Ignacio said the order is void, illegal and nothing but a scrap of paper.

He said he would question the decision through a motion for reconsideration.

In the order, Gutierrez said, “The gravity of the dishonesty committed by respondent and the distrust and extent of the prejudice he had brought to public service and in particular the shame he inflicted in this Office cannot be overstressed.”

Gutierrez, referring to a decision by the Internal Affairs Board (IAB) which looked into the case based on a complaint filed by Assistant Special Prosecutor Luz Quiñones-Marcos, said Villa-Ignacio applied for the position of Ombudsman in 2005 and deliberately failed to inform the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) about his reprimand.

The IAB ruling forms part of the harassment he has been subjected to since 2007, Villa-Ignacio said.

He said the IAB, which investigated him, does not even have the authority to do so because it is headed by Orlando Casimiro, who is on his 10th year as Overall Deputy Ombudsman (ODO).

He said a person could only occupy the position for seven years with no extension, and since there is no holdover principle, the IAB had no authority to handle the case and that “the whole process was illegal.”

Villa-Ignacio said he did not submit himself to the process and even filed several motions asking Casimiro to inhibit, although he was forced to answer the allegations because he had to or his rights to defend himself would be deemed waived.

Gutierrez said the Special Prosecutor is called to a very high level of integrity and honesty and should have absolutely shunned anything that would bring disrepute not only to his office but also to the institution he represents.

“He (Villa-Ignacio) occupies a very respectable and exalted position in the hierarchy of this Office. His job is to prosecute wrongdoings of public officials, including dishonesty whether or not related to their official capacity. He failed to meet the above standards by deliberately failing to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet important and pertinent details such as Administrative Matter No. RTC-60-5092,” she stressed.

Records show that in a March 2001 decision, the Supreme Court reprimanded Villa-Ignacio for failing to act on a motion for reconsideration of an annulment case ruling filed by Fe Reas Correa.

Even though he was not appointed to the post he applied for, Gutierrez said “the attempt to defraud is made no less serious just because he failed to be appointed to the position.”

She added that concealing the administrative case was also quite unfair to the other applicants who under oath were similarly required to disclose everything before the JBC.

“The fact that respondent never thought he was already committing perjury in his very application to the exalted position of Ombudsman whose essential mandate is to stamp out all forms of dishonesty and fraud in public service is very much alarming,” she stressed.

Gutierrez said she fully agrees with the way the IAB disposed of Villa-Ignacio’s “attempts to explain away his dishonesty and perjury” by claiming that he is still pre-occupied with his wife’s death.

The internal investigation rejected his excuse because his wife had been deceased at least two years before the dishonest application was completed.

Villa-Ignacio’s defense that the haste in the submission of his application for Ombudsman, which caused him to overlook the details because he was busy prosecuting former President Joseph Estrada, was also rejected.

“The prosecution of the case involving the former president was handled by a panel composed of deputy special prosecutor, assistant special prosecutor and other lawyers from the private sector who was at the time in control of the proceedings. At best, he merely acted as the prosecution’s spokesperson,” Gutierrez said.

She said the IAB’s recommendation finding respondent guilty of dishonesty warrants his dismissal from the service with accessory penalties.

“Therefore, Pursuant to Section 8(2) of RA 6770, let a copy of the decision in this administrative case be forwarded to the Office of the President for immediate action,” Gutierrez said.