Panlilio seeks dismissal of graft charges

Supposedly for “lack of probable cause and substantial evidence,” Pampanga Gov. Eddie Panlilio asked the Office of the Ombudsman yesterday to dismiss the graft case filed against him by Vice Gov. Joseller Guiao and 10 provincial board members.

In a 20-page counter-affidavit, Panlilio denied that he violated Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 7160 or the Local Government Code as he opposed an ordinance passed by the provincial board that reduced the share of the provincial government from lahar sand quarrying income.

Guiao and the provincial board members accused Panlilio of “dereliction of duty, gross inexcusable negligence, grave misconduct, abuse of authority and/or impropriety in the performance of duty” for his supposed refusal to implement Ordinance No. 176 Series of 2002, which they unanimously approved on Sept. 21 last year.

The ordinance reduced to only 30 percent the original 50 percent share of the provincial government from the P300 fee imposed on each truck carrying lahar sand.

Under the new setup, the remaining 30 and 40 percent of the revenue would go to the host municipality and barangay, respectively.

Panlilio vetoed the ordinance last Oct. 1, as he feared that the new sharing scheme would deprive many provincial development projects of needed funds.

Panlilio, represented by private legal counsels, even questioned the ordinance before the Department of Justice (DOJ) last Nov. 22.

This prompted Guiao and the provincial board members to file criminal and administrative charges against him last April 4.

In his counter-affidavit, Panlilio refuted the charges against him, specifically his alleged violations of Section 3 (e) and (f) of RA 3019 and Section 60 of RA 7160.

The priest-turned-governor said he did not refuse or failed to implement the ordinance despite his appeal with the DOJ.

He explained that under Section 276 of implementing rules and regulations of the Local Government Code, an ordinance takes effect at the beginning of the next ensuing quarter following the period during which the new law was published.

In this case, he said the ordinance was published in November last year so it was implemented only last Jan. 1.