EDITORIAL

Depoliticizing preventive suspension

The preventive suspension of Governor Aris Aumentado and 68 others is
definitely not a guilty verdict. The Ombudsman’s Order dated 20 May 2024 is clear that
the purpose of placing 69 public officials and employees under preventive suspension is
“to prevent any possible tampering of evidence, harassment of witnesses, interference
or exercise of influence by any of the respondents, and/or withholding or concealment
of pertinent records or documents and also to avert the commission of further
malfeasance and misfeasance in office by the aforesaid respondents.”
At this point, it is premature to make any conclusion that one or all of the
respondents in the ongoing investigation is guilty or not guilty of the administrative and
criminal charges. It is unfair for the respondents to be subjected to hate messages and
bashing on social media. The innuendos that the case is politically motivated is far-
fetched since the investigation was triggered when the Captain’s Peak Resort went viral
on social media which elicited public outrage.
Let it be clarified that the Ombudsman did not make any adjudication of the
respondents’ administrative and/or criminal liability when the Office states in its Order
that “there is strong evidence showing their guilt of the charges against them.” Such
preliminary determination was made only to provide a justification for the issuance of
the suspension order. But this also does not mean that the charges have completely no
factual and legal bases.
At this stage, the Ombudsman may have in possession vital documents that
support the complainant’s charges that public respondents acted with manifest

partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence and committed gross
violations of the NIPAS Act of 1992 and the E-NIPAS Act of 2018 when they remained
adamant and continuously tolerated the operation and expansion of Captain’s Peak
Resort despite its lack of environmental clearances and/or permits.
The existence of the controversial resort within the iconic Chocolate Hills National
Monument without the necessary permits is an issue that is difficult to justify. This
could have been the reason why the Ombudsman issued the preventive suspension
order against several government officials and employees.
The suspension of key officials in the province is a reminder to all those
entrusted with governmental powers of the Public Trust Doctrine articulated by the
Supreme Court in this wise:

But the public deserves better than “pwedena.” Their quiet
tolerance should not inspire a culture of idleness and indifference within
the government. The famed resilience of the Filipino people is never a trait
to be abused. These cases aim to impress upon everyone in the political
sphere the import of the Public Trust Doctrine: the people are the ultimate
owners of the country’s resources, over which the State is a trustee, a
subservient manager, a mere nominal holder. The Doctrine enjoins not
only petitioners herein, but all public service providers that earn their keep
primarily through paychecks funded by the people, in the strict compliance
of the regulatory laws relevant to them.||| (Maynilad Water Services, Inc.
v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969 (Resolution), [July 19, 2022])