The penalty imposed by the Ombudsman against former Bohol provincial officials who attempted to save an international event during the pandemic is too harsh, according to former Provincial Legal Officer Atty. Nilo Ahat.
Ahat defended the actions of former Gov. Arthur Yap and other dismissed officials, telling a DYTR program hosted by broadcast journalist Ted Ayeng that the dismissal from service was disproportionate to their actions.
“The penalty of dismissal from service is too harsh and disproportionate to the mistake or errors or acts committed, which was clearly involuntary,” Ahat said.
“There was no intention to violate the procurement law but only to save the international event and make it happen. No injury was caused to the government because the event was successful at no cost or expense to the government because we paid it back upon the order of COA.”
On Aug. 5, 2025, Ahat and seven other former Capitol officials who served under Yap received the Ombudsman’s decision dismissing them from service.
The Ombudsman ruled that Yap and his co-respondents violated procurement laws when they delayed the preparation of documents to secure services from a sound system provider for the Philippine Tourism Expo held Sept. 22-25, 2021.
The Commission on Audit had earlier issued a Notice of Disallowance against the transaction involving P761,000 due to the procurement violation.
COA ordered the officials to reimburse the government, which they complied with.
The dismissed officials argued they were informed late about the need to hire a sound system for the event, requiring immediate equipment repairs to ensure the event’s success.
This caused the delay in document preparation, they said.
Dismissed from service were Yap, Ahat, former Provincial Administrator Kathyrin Puoquinto, Executive Assistant Giselle Quimpo, Provincial Engineer Camilo Gasatan, Provincial Budget Officer Peter Ross Retutal, and former Provincial Health Officer and current Loon Mayor Yul Lopez.
Ahat announced they will file a motion for reconsideration before the Aug. 15, 2015 reglamentary period expires.
Under Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), procurement violations can result in administrative sanctions.
However, Philippine jurisprudence recognizes mitigating circumstances that may warrant lighter penalties.
Section 65 of RA 9184 allows consideration of mitigating factors, including lack of criminal intent and good faith efforts to serve public interest.
The Supreme Court has established in various decisions that administrative penalties should be proportionate to the offense committed.
The officials’ defense appears grounded on the doctrine of incomplete crimes under the Revised Penal Code, where absence of criminal intent (dolo) may reduce culpability.
Their immediate compliance with COA’s reimbursement order demonstrates good faith and absence of personal gain, factors that courts have historically considered in administrative cases.
The emergency nature of the international event during the pandemic may also constitute exceptional circumstances that could justify procedural deviations, particularly given the successful outcome without government expense, decided cases have noted.