Ombudsman, deputy accused of ignorance of the law

MANILA, Philippines - Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio yesterday accused Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro of gross ignorance of the law for recommending his dismissal from government service for alleged dishonesty.

Villa-Ignacio said he would question the decision of the Internal Affairs Board (IAB) either before the Court of Appeals (CA) or the Supreme Court (SC).

Villa-Ignacio argued that he could only be removed from office on very specific grounds as provided under the 1987 Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

A Special Prosecutor can only be dismissed from the service if he commits culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft, and other high crimes, he pointed out.

“The Office of the President cannot act on something that is unconstitutional from the very beginning,” Villa-Ignacio stressed.

He said the IAB, which investigated how he allegedly withheld information on why the SC reprimanded him, had issued a void and illegal order.

In a supplemental order dated Jan. 29, 2010, Ombudsman Gutierrez recommended the dismissal of Villa-Ignacio for dishonesty.

Villa-Ignacio was accused of “deliberately” failing to inform the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) about his SC case when he applied for Ombudsman in 1995.

“He 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,” Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez said Villa-Ignacio failed to meet the standards by deliberately withholding the information in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) as required under Administrative Matter No. RTC-60-5092.

Villa-Ignacio, however, argued that the allegations of dishonesty made by Gutierrez are different from the betrayal of public trust as required under the Constitution.

He went on to accuse the IAB of being “an instrument of persecution” that was used to “deprive me of my retirement gratuity,” considering that his seven-year term as Special Prosecutor either ended on Feb. 14 or will end on Feb. 24, an issue that is yet to be resolved.

Villa-Ignacio said the order recommending his removal from public office and the forfeiture of his retirement benefits as among the accessory penalties is “void for being contrary to law.”

Officials of the Office of the Ombudsman, on the other hand, refused to comment on the arguments being raised in relation to IAB ruling and Ombudsman Gutierrez’s order.

Sources, however, said the issues would be answered or addressed accordingly once Villa-Ignacio puts them on paper.

“It’s not proper to debate with Villa-Ignacio at this time. The Ombudsman will wait for his action and respond appropriately,” an official said.