Paolo Duterte case related to SALN, says Morales

Published June 11, 2018, 5:38 PM

by Francine Ciasico

By Czarina Nicole Ong

The criminal complaint filed against former Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte before the Office of the Ombudsman is related to the reported anomalies found in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities,and Net Worth (SALN).

Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte face the media on the first day of his office on Friday as Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio is on leave until July 22. (KEITH BACONGCO/ Manila Bulletin File Photo)
Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte of Davao City (KEITH BACONGCO/ Manila Bulletin File Photo)

This is what Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales said during an interview with CNN Philippines, which was aired today.

The outgoing Ombudsman maintained that she has inhibited herself in all cases concerning President Rodrigo Duterte and his family, since her nephew, Mans Carpio, is the son-in-law of Duterte. Carpio is married to Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte.

“You see, I had inhibited early on even during the time when the president now was mayor. I had inhibited in cases involving the then mayor and his family. So, when the case of Paolo Duterte came, they referred it to me and I said, ‘Due to prior inhibition, I will inhibit in this case,'” she said.

Morales revealed during the interview that the cases of Paolo are under preliminary investigation by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) Cyril Ramos.

“What I know is that it has not been terminated yet. Whether or not it is up at this particular stage or not, I wouldn’t know. I don’t dare inquire,” Morales said. “I think it has to do with his SALN. I think [it is under] preliminary investigation,” Morales said.

Based on a document dated January 12, 2018 from the Office of the Ombudsman Central Records Division, there are five pending cases against Paolo Duterte.

The first one, docketed OMB-C-A-16-0073, is for violation of Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. OMB-C-C-16-0081 is for violation of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, while OMB-C-F-16-0019 is for violation of R.A. 1379 or an act declaring forfeiture in favor of the state any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee.

OMB-C-A-16-0074 is for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. The last one is for another violation of R.A. 3019 and Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (perjury).