OMBUDSMAN Junks Criiminal and Admin Cases vs Miraflores, Quimpo, SP members

The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints against former Governor Florencio T. Miraflores, reelected Vice Governor Atty. Renaldo M. Quimpo, former and reelected members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for lack of probable cause and substantial evidence, respectively.

Named respondents with Miraflores and Quimpo were reelected SP Members Nemesio P. Neron and Jay E. Tejada, SP member Ciriaco T. Feliciano of the Liga ng Mga Barangay, SP Member Blessie D. Jizmundo of the Panlalawigan Pederasyon ng Samahan ng Mga Kabataan, Teddy C. Tupas of the Philippine Councilor’s League, Aklan Chapter who was elected as 19th SP Member, and former SP Members Emmanuel Soviet Russia A. de la Cruz, Lillian Q. Tirol, Ramon S. Gelito, Miguel M. Miraflores, Esel L. Flores and Nelson D. Santamaria.

Complainants Ignacio Yulo M. Dumalaog and Victor M. Garcia criminally charged above-named respondents for Violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrup Practices Act docketed as OMB-V-C- -19-0200 and administratively, for Abuse of Authority/Violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees/Violation of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991).\

The cases stemmed from the official act of the provincial legislative body by enacting on August 20, 2018 Resolution No. 2018-962 which granted respondent, then Governor Miraflores, authority to negotiate and enter into a contract of loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for the total amount of P1.053 billion with initial availment of P153 million for various infrastructure projects. The resolution was enacted upon the request of respondent Miraflores through his urgent-letter request dated July 26, 2018 to the Sanggunian in reference to the request of then Provincial Treasurer Suzette F. Pioquid to enter into a contract of loan with DBP in the same amount to finance various provincial infrastructure projects.

Complainants Dumalaog and Garcia assailed the said resolution saying that the respondents’ act of amending the amount to P1.053 billion as shown in the resolution was ultra vires, and that respondent Miraflores’ act of approving said questionable amount in said Resolution showed his knowledge and consent. Complainants believed that respondents conspired in increasing the amount to be loaned from DBP which caused undue injury to the Province for the difference between the amended amount of P1.053 billion and the intended/actually needed amount of P153 million.

Respondents countered by clarifying that Resolution 2018-962 granted respondent Miraflores to enter into a contract of loan with DBP in the amount of P153 million and not that it amended the loan contract amount of P153 million to P1.053 billion. The mentioned amount of P1.053 billion referred to the total credit facility agreed by the DBP with the provincial government of Aklan which will be availed for its infrastructure projects. The approval of the P1.053 billion credit facility was the offshoot of the issuance of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) of the Net Debt Service Ceiling and Borrowing Capacity approximating the total credit facility. The Ombudsman emphasized that assailed resolution authorized the governor initial availment of only P153 million and succeeding availment shall be further subject to the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

The Ombudsman ruled that the complaint only satisfied one element for respondents to be indicted under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and that is ‘accused are public officers discharging administrative, judicial or official functions.’ The complaint however is wanting of the two other elements under the same law, such as: that respondents acted with manifest impartiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and, their actions caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of their functions.

Hence, the criminal complaint was bereft of probable cause.

In like manner, as the administrative complaint is anchored in the above-stated facts and circumstances, the same must be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, the Ombudsman further ruled. “Again, it is not shown that respondents violated the norms of conduct demanded of their office nor that they displayed excessive use of their authority in issuing Resolution 2018-962, then it cannot be said that respondents displayed Grave Abuse of Authority (Oppression) Violation of RA 6713/7160,” the Ombudsman emphasized.