Dismissal won’t stop Gwen’s comeback bid

CEBU, Philippines — The order of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing Deputy House Speaker Gwendolyn Garcia from service and perpetually disqualifying her from holding public post isn’t going to stop her from seeking a fresh term.

Garcia, former Cebu governor and now Cebu Third District congresswoman, said her dismissal cannot be immediately executory since it is not yet final and may be subject to judicial review before it could be implemented.

Garcia said she can still pursue her gubernatorial bid in next year’s midterm elections.

“In the first place, the decision, while “executory” for certain officials, is not final. It is appealable to the Court of Appeals (CA),” read Garcia’s statement.

“Secondly, the only bar under the election laws is conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude or an offense with a penalty of more than one year. No less than the Provincial Election Supervisor, Atty. Lionel Castillano, confirmed this, saying the Ombudsman decision in this administrative case is not a bar to my filing my certificate of candidacy,” the statement added.

Garcia said she will elevate her case to the CA.

“We will seek recourse with the CA and we are confident that we will prevail,” she said.

The Ombudsman, in a decision released Monday, upheld Garcia’s dismissal from service and her perpetual disqualification from running for public office.

It stemmed from the unauthorized P24.47 million project to backfill an underwater Balili property in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City during Garcia’s stint as governor of Cebu. The property was purchased for around P100 million in 2008. But half of the property, it turned out, was underwater and part of a mangrove area.

The anti-graft body denied Garcia’s motion for reconsideration, asking the former to reverse its February 2018 ruling dismissing her from service.

But Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Kristine Suzanne Fineza found no sufficient basis to reverse an earlier ruling by the Ombudsman.

The decision was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales dated July 18, 2018.

The decision, however, came as no surprise for Garcia.

The congresswoman said Morales was incapable of rendering a “fair and just” decision, owing to her personal closeness to former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., whose son Garcia is running against in the next elections.

“I have frequently said that Morales was incapable of rendering a fair and just decision against me, owing to her personal closeness to Davide Jr, whose son I am running against in the next elections. This was illustrated by her flip-flopping in the case involving the CICC, where she revived a case long dismissed by the former Ombudsman, decided against me, then on motion for reconsideration by one of the parties, dismissed the case again, but in an unprecedented motion for reconsideration by her own office, found me liable again,” Garcia said.

“Her denial of my motion for reconsideration in this case, therefore, which was filed by her friend’s son, comes as no surprise,” she added.

Garcia said the dismissal order was also meant to derail her political plans.

“The intention to sow confusion among the public is evident in how the denial is now being twisted and presented as an alleged bar against my running for Governor next year. This is patently misleading.”

Cebu Governor Hilario Davide III described Garcia’s allegations as “hilarious.

The governor belied that his father, Davide Jr., is using his ties with Morales to persecute Garcia.

“The trouble with her, she blames others for her folly except herself,”  the governor said.

Citing existing laws, Garcia further said the anti-graft body has no authority to impose on officials the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

“I invite the public to search the Constitution, the Ombudsman Law, the Administrative Code, the Civil Service Law or any law for that matter for any provision granting the Ombudsman the authority to impose the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Only the courts have the authority to do so in a criminal case where the accessory penalty is warranted,” the statement read. (FREEMAN)