Gov. Erico Aristotle Aumentado
(2nd Part of a Series)
A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by Larry Pamugas, Officer-in-Charge
of the Provincial Agriculture Office of Bohol, against Governor Erico Aristotle
Aumentado and the members of the Office of Governance, Accountability and
Review (OGAR) before the sala of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Jennifer
Chavez-Marcos.
The petition had sought to nullify Executive Order No. 2 and 2-A, which created
OGAR, a body that oversees the performance and accountability of the provincial
government officials and employees.
Pamugas claimed that the Executive Orders violated his constitutional rights to due
process, equal protection, and presumption of innocence.
He alleged that OGAR has subjected him to public hate, contempt, and ridicule when
it accused him of graft and corruption in various media platforms.
He asserted that OGAR has persecuted him long before he received a copy of the
administrative complaint against him.
Pamugas argued that he has the right to file the petition as a public employee who
has sustained and continues to be in danger of sustaining personal injury attributable
to the creation and operation of OGAR, contending that he has a valid interest as a
taxpayer to question the budgetary allocation for the office’s creation.
According to the court, the petitioner’s case is ripe for adjudication as the act being
challenged – the creation of OGAR – has a direct adverse effect on Pamugas as a
provincial government employee who has been charged by the said office with an
administrative offense.
The respondents did not deny that in several instances through radio, newspaper,
and social media publications, they have actually announced the fact that the
administrative charges against the petitioner were initiated by their office (OGAR).
Petitioner felt wronged by the actuation of an office the existence of which he
questions.
There is an actual case or controversy in the case at bar, the court said.
The court therefore agreed with the petitioner: Pamugas “has the legal standing to
file the instant petition. Indeed, he has personal and substantial interest in this case
since he has allegedly sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the
governmental act that is being challenged.”
The issue of constitutionality is the very motivation or the very litis mota in the filing
of this case, Judge Marcos pointed out in her decision that nullified the
constitutionality of Aumentado’s OGAR.
The administrative case filed against the petitioner has no bearing whatsoever in the
instant petition as it may or may not prosper on its own merits, the court noted.
While respondents alleged that the administrative case against petitioner was filed in
the individual capacity of some OGAR Board of Directors’ members, there is no
dispute that such a case can be filed in the absence of the assailed office, the court
said.
The court sustained the petitioner’s argument that the “issue raised in this petition is
its very litis mota as the issue of constitutionality cannot be disposed of on some
other ground such as the application of a statute or a general law.”
Another issue raised by the petitioner is whether or not private lawyers can represent
OGAR in this case.
Petitioner Pamugas maintained that the respondents in the instant case should only
be represented by the Provincial Legal Officer pursuant to Section 481 of the Local
Government Code of 1991.
The court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention. The court cites the rulings of the
Supreme Court in Domato-Togonon vs COA, et. al. and Polloso v. Hon. Gangan,
which stress that the Commission on Audit Circular No. 98-002 amended the
previous circulars that prohibit the employment of private lawyers by government
agencies and instrumentalities without the prior written conformity and acquiescence
of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be,
as well as the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit.
The court said the purpose of the circular is “to curtail the unauthorized and
unnecessary disbursement of public funds to private lawyers for services rendered to
the government.”
Judge Marcos, in her ruling, also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in
Municipality of Pililla, Rizal v. Court of Appeals, which states that only the Provincial
Fiscal and the Municipal Attorney can represent a Province or Municipality in their
lawsuits, and the municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly
limited only to situations where the Provincial Fiscal is disqualified from representing
it.
The court therefore ruled that the private lawyers hired by the respondents to
represent OGAR have no authority to do so and their appearance in this case is
invalid.
On the other hand, respondents, led by Governor Aumentado, contended that
Pamugas has no locus standi or legal standing to challenge the Executive Orders.
They maintain that the petition shows that it is not the issuance of the Executive
Orders, but rather, the actions attributed to individuals who are identified as
members of OGAR, particularly Leoncio Evasco Jr. and Emmanuel “Willy”
Ramasola, who allegedly caused a violation of Pamugas’ rights.
The respondents pointed out that the injury that Pamugas claims to have suffered
did not arise from the enforcement of the challenged Executive Orders.
Rather, the bare allegations of Pamugas are more in the nature of generalized
grievances against the alleged actuations and public pronouncements of the
respondents.
The respondents also invoked the presumption of validity and regularity of the
Executive Orders, which were issued by the Governor in the exercise of his
executive and administrative powers. (TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT SUNDAY)