By DAVE SUAN ALBARADO
TAGBILARAN CITY, BOHOL – The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol – Branch 2 has denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Governor Erico Aristotle Aumentado and the Board of Directors of the Office of Government Accountability and Review (OGAR) in the case filed by Larry M. Pamugas, former officer-in-charge of the provincial agriculture office.
Earlier, Pamugas filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction, with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, against the creation of OGAR by Executive Order No. 2 and 2-A issued by Aumentado in 2021.
Pamugas claimed that OGAR was an illegal and unconstitutional office that usurped the functions of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Commission on Audit (COA).
In its decision last year, the court declared the executive orders null and void for being contrary to law, illegal and violative of the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
In its decision dated January 11, 2024, the court ruled that the respondents (Aumentado, Leoncio Evasco, Emmanuel “Willy Ramasola, Dan Lim, Sisico Arcamo, and Macario Delusa) were not allowed to be represented by private lawyers, as they were public officials performing public functions.
The respondents filed separate motions for reconsideration, arguing that OGAR was not a new and separate office, but an adjunct office under the Office of the Governor.
Aumentado’s group also contended that they had the right to choose their own counsel, as they were being sued in their personal capacities.
The court, however, rejected their arguments and affirmed its decision in an order dated January 11, 2024.
According to Judge Marcos, OGAR was clearly a new and separate office, as evidenced by the executive orders creating it, and that it had no legal basis under the Local Government Code.
The court stressed that the respondents were being sued in their official capacities, as they acted under the color of their authority, and that they should be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Provincial Legal Office.
Citing the case of Domato-Togonan vs. COA, et. al., Judge Marcos reminded the respondents that a government agency may not hire the services of private lawyers for a fee, chargeable against public funds, unless exceptional or extraordinary circumstances obtain.
RTC Judge Marcos found no such circumstances in the said case, as the respondents were merely defending the issuance of the executive orders, which was within the function of the Provincial Legal Office.
The court also denied the respondents’ motion to inhibit Judge Marcos., who penned the decision, for alleged bias and partiality.
RTC’s decision noted that the respondents failed to show any valid ground for inhibition, and that their motion was a mere dilatory tactic.
It also dismissed the respondents’ claim that the decision was void for vagueness, as it declared the executive orders unconstitutional, yet found no violation of the equal protection clause.
The court explained that the unconstitutionality was due to the violation of the principle of separation of powers, as the executive orders went beyond the powers and duties of the local chief executive and encroached upon the powers of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
RTC Judge Marcos further rejected the respondents’ argument that the court violated the constitutional provision that the decision must be based on facts and law, and that the court failed to conduct a full blown trial to establish facts upon which a decision could be based.
The court pointed out that the case was a special civil action for certiorari, which was governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
According to Judge Marcos, under Rule 65, the court may render judgment based on the allegations of the petition, the comment or other pleadings filed by the parties, and the memoranda submitted by them.
The court said that it did not need to conduct a trial, as the issues raised in the petition were purely questions of law, and not of fact.
In the end, Judge Marcos ordered the respondents to “cease and desist from implementing the executive orders and from performing any function under the OGAR.”
The court also directed the Clerk of Court to furnish copies of the Order to the concerned agencies and offices.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is a rule that governs the procedure for seeking judicial review of the actions or inactions of any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
It also covers the remedies of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, which are extraordinary writs that may be issued by the court to correct errors of jurisdiction, to prevent unlawful or oppressive exercises of authority, or to compel the performance of a ministerial duty.