Winning the fight against corruption
The Office of Governance Accountability and Review (OGAR) recently recommended the filing of administrative charges against Larry Pamugas, the officer-in-charge of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist, for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and commission of an act punishable under the Anti-Graft Law.
Reports say that the OGAR has options to file the administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman or the Civil Service Commission, but they chose to file them before the provincial government for swift action on the matter. It is claimed that the governor can suspend or terminate erring government personnel, although Section 465 of the Local Government Code provides that the governor may cause to be instituted administrative or judicial proceedings against any official or employee of the province who may have committed an offense in the performance of his official duties.
If there is substantial evidence to prove the charges, it is the stand of the Bohol Tribune that the same must be filed and prosecuted until its final resolution to hold any erring public official or employee accountable. After all, a public office is a public trust and the officer must hold this power in trust to be used only for their benefit and never for the benefit of himself or of a few.
Without delving into the merits of the case, however, it would have been better if the charges are to be tried before an impartial administrative tribunal.
With all due respect, OGAR was created by an Executive Order of the Governor. The choice of the venue for the administrative charges seems to be problematic in terms of compliance with the requirement of an impartial tribunal. Now that the said office has gathered evidence for the filing of the charges, the respondent will be tried, and his fate will be decided, by the very same office that wanted to investigate and to file cases of graft and corruption against the previous administrations.
It is our opinion that this case must be decided either by the Ombudsman or the Civil Service Commission to avoid the entire process to be tainted with bias.
It may be recalled that in declaring EO No. 1 of the late President Benigno Aquino as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court quoting the language of Yick Wo v. Hopkins said that “though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if applied and administered by a public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.”
If successful, this case will be a triumph against graft and corruption. But this opportunity may be lost if the case is dismissed or reversed on appeal.
by Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA