CA clears Nueva Ecija governor of administrative liability in 2005
Published Oct 6, 2019 02:58 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Court of Appeals (CA) has cleared Nueva Ecija Gov. Aurelio M. Umali of administrative liability over his P15 million pork barrel funds in 2005 when he was a member of the House of Representatives for the province’s third legislative district.
Court of Appeals (MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision, the CA ruled that Umali was still covered by the 1959 condonation doctrine because the abandonment of the doctrine in the 2015 decision of the Supreme Court (SC) was prospective in application.
Under the condonation doctrine, an elected public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a previous term with his or her re-election to office by the same electorate.
In 2016 and 2017 resolutions, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) found Umali guilty in administrative cases filed against him in connection with his 2005 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
The OMB ordered Umali’s dismissal from the service and barred him perpetually from holding public office.
He was found by the OMB administratively liable for diverting substantial funds from his PDAF and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program funds to Masaganing Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation. Inc. (MAMFI) and the Samahan ng mga Manininda ng Prutas sa Gabi, Inc. to implement his livelihood projects.
Investigation showed that there were no purchases of agricultural implements as liquid fertilizers as reported by the two livelihood firms which were the recipients of the funds.
Umali, who won the 2019 gubernatorial elections in Nueva Ecija, elevated the OMB’s ruling before the CA when he was prevented from assuming his post as governor.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) had earlier issued a regional advisory which mandates that local elective officials who were dismissed from the service should serve the imposed penalty even after the said officials were proclaimed to have won in the last May 2019 elections.
Last month, the CA – in a resolution issued by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr. – issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that barred the OMB and the DILG from implementing the OMB’s 2016 and 2017 resolutions.
Last October 4, the CA issued a decision – also written by Associate Justice Bruselas – that resolved the petition in favor of Umali.
The CA ruled:
“The assailed Decision of the Ombudsman dated 14 November 2016 and Order dated 29 September 2017, although supported by substantial evidence, may not be implemented and are accordingly SET ASIDE. The administrative misconduct committed by petitioner Aurelio M. Umali is deemed CONDONED.”
But the CA said: “Be it made clear, however, that criminal prosecutions concerning the same set of facts surrounding an administrative case are not barred or prejudiced by any disposition in the administrative case.”
Explaining why Umali was still covered by the condonation doctrine, the CA said:
“Here, the acts complained of were committed in 2005. The alleged act of condonation, that is, the petitioner's (Umali’s) election as provincial Governor, happened in 2007. In fact, the petitioner was re-elected in 2010 and 2013.
“All of these material dates preceded Binay (the case which abandoned prospectively the condonation doctrine in 2015). There can be no doubt therefore that the circumstances of the petitioner's case transpired prior to Binay.
“The acts complained of and the date of filing of the complaint against the petitioner were prior to the promulgation of Binay in 2015. The alleged act of condonation, that is, his election as Governor in 2007 and his re-election in 2010 and 2013, also preceded Binay.
“Stated otherwise, during the periods material to the instant case, the Aguinaldo doctrine (condonation doctrine) would still be good law.”
The CA said that while the electorate that voted Umali as governor may not be the same body politic that elected him member of Congress, “it is clear that the body politic of the said district, a much smaller one, is well embraced by the much larger body politic of the province.”
“While the May 2019 election cannot be considered as the act of condonation, it evidences, nonetheless, the proclivity of the body politic of the 3rd District of Nueva Ecija to put their trust on the petitioner. The petitioner was elected not once but four times from the time when he committed the acts complained of in 2005,” the CA said.
Thus, the CA said, “on account of the condonation doctrine, the will of the electorate of the 3rd District of Nueva Ecija must be respected.”
“The Court is thus precluded from imposing the penalty for the administrative liability of the petitioner. This covers not just the principal penalty of removal from public service but includes the accessory penalties as well, such as the perpetual disqualification to hold public office,” it ruled.
Court of Appeals (MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision, the CA ruled that Umali was still covered by the 1959 condonation doctrine because the abandonment of the doctrine in the 2015 decision of the Supreme Court (SC) was prospective in application.
Under the condonation doctrine, an elected public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a previous term with his or her re-election to office by the same electorate.
In 2016 and 2017 resolutions, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) found Umali guilty in administrative cases filed against him in connection with his 2005 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
The OMB ordered Umali’s dismissal from the service and barred him perpetually from holding public office.
He was found by the OMB administratively liable for diverting substantial funds from his PDAF and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program funds to Masaganing Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation. Inc. (MAMFI) and the Samahan ng mga Manininda ng Prutas sa Gabi, Inc. to implement his livelihood projects.
Investigation showed that there were no purchases of agricultural implements as liquid fertilizers as reported by the two livelihood firms which were the recipients of the funds.
Umali, who won the 2019 gubernatorial elections in Nueva Ecija, elevated the OMB’s ruling before the CA when he was prevented from assuming his post as governor.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) had earlier issued a regional advisory which mandates that local elective officials who were dismissed from the service should serve the imposed penalty even after the said officials were proclaimed to have won in the last May 2019 elections.
Last month, the CA – in a resolution issued by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr. – issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that barred the OMB and the DILG from implementing the OMB’s 2016 and 2017 resolutions.
Last October 4, the CA issued a decision – also written by Associate Justice Bruselas – that resolved the petition in favor of Umali.
The CA ruled:
“The assailed Decision of the Ombudsman dated 14 November 2016 and Order dated 29 September 2017, although supported by substantial evidence, may not be implemented and are accordingly SET ASIDE. The administrative misconduct committed by petitioner Aurelio M. Umali is deemed CONDONED.”
But the CA said: “Be it made clear, however, that criminal prosecutions concerning the same set of facts surrounding an administrative case are not barred or prejudiced by any disposition in the administrative case.”
Explaining why Umali was still covered by the condonation doctrine, the CA said:
“Here, the acts complained of were committed in 2005. The alleged act of condonation, that is, the petitioner's (Umali’s) election as provincial Governor, happened in 2007. In fact, the petitioner was re-elected in 2010 and 2013.
“All of these material dates preceded Binay (the case which abandoned prospectively the condonation doctrine in 2015). There can be no doubt therefore that the circumstances of the petitioner's case transpired prior to Binay.
“The acts complained of and the date of filing of the complaint against the petitioner were prior to the promulgation of Binay in 2015. The alleged act of condonation, that is, his election as Governor in 2007 and his re-election in 2010 and 2013, also preceded Binay.
“Stated otherwise, during the periods material to the instant case, the Aguinaldo doctrine (condonation doctrine) would still be good law.”
The CA said that while the electorate that voted Umali as governor may not be the same body politic that elected him member of Congress, “it is clear that the body politic of the said district, a much smaller one, is well embraced by the much larger body politic of the province.”
“While the May 2019 election cannot be considered as the act of condonation, it evidences, nonetheless, the proclivity of the body politic of the 3rd District of Nueva Ecija to put their trust on the petitioner. The petitioner was elected not once but four times from the time when he committed the acts complained of in 2005,” the CA said.
Thus, the CA said, “on account of the condonation doctrine, the will of the electorate of the 3rd District of Nueva Ecija must be respected.”
“The Court is thus precluded from imposing the penalty for the administrative liability of the petitioner. This covers not just the principal penalty of removal from public service but includes the accessory penalties as well, such as the perpetual disqualification to hold public office,” it ruled.