By Jeffrey Damicog
The Supreme Court (SC) has denied because of “procedural infirmity” the bid of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to dismiss a government official whose actions led to the distribution of protected forest land to private individuals.
Supreme Court (SC) (MANILA BULLETIN)
“The petition suffers from a procedural infirmity,” read the SC’s November 19 resolution that made available to media on Friday, December 27.
The SC upheld the September 12 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed the 2018 rulings of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) not to dismiss from service DENR Region 12 Surveys Division acting chief Usman Magarang.
Despite this, the SC assured that the DENR can still refile the administrative case against Magarang.
“Nonetheless, as consistently held by the CA and the CSC, even if the petition of the DENR Secretary is procedurally infirmed and must be denied, this is without prejudice on the re-filing of the administrative case against respondent in accordance with the CSC rules and the Administrative Code,” read the high court’s resolution.
The DENR issued a ruling dated February 28, 2017 which dismissed Magarang from service for having committed grave misconduct after serious irregularities were found in the 33 Group Settlement Surveys (GSS) issued by DENR Region 12 that led to the illegal issuance of free patents to private individuals.
The DENR pointed out that the GSS that were issued covered portions of protected forest land in General Santos City, South Cotabato.
Magarang appealed his dismissal before the CSC which subsequently junked the DENR’s dismissal order. The CSC’s rulings were later affirmed by the CA.
In its resolution, the SC agreed with the CSC that the DENR Secretary should be the one to issue the formal charge against Magarang pursuant to the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (RRACCS).
“In this case, the Formal Charge was issued by Asec. Nicer, and not by the DENR Secretary. Notably, the DENR Secretary did not delegate to Asec. Nicer the power to issue the Formal Charge against respondent. Rather, the only authority given to Asec. Nicer was to investigate alleged corruptions committed by public officials. The authority to administratively charge respondent ultimately remained with the DENR Secretary,” the high tribunal explained.
On the other hand, the SC decided to skip ruling on the DENR’s assertions that Section 20, Rule 5 of the RRACCS should be declared unconstitutional for usurping the legislative power of Congress as an administrative amendment of a statute.
“In other words, if the determination of the constitutionality of a particular statute can be avoided based on some other ground, then the Court will not touch upon the issue of unconstitutionality,” the SC stated.
The SC also agreed that “the CA properly dismissed the petition for review of the DENR Secretary because it did not have the conformity of the OSG (Office of the Solicitor General).”
The petition for review sough against the CSC ruling was filed before the CA by DENR Undersecretary Ernesto Adobo Jr.
“Due to the failure to comply with the mandatory policy that the OSG represent the government before the appelate court, the CA properly dismissed the DENR petition for review,” the high court declared.
Citing the Administrative Code, the SC reminded that “the OSG is the principal law officer and legal defender of the Government” and that “the OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.”
“Glaringly, Usec. Adobo was not even deputized by the OSG to file the petition before the CA. Further, the DENR Secretary could not prove that the OSG refused to represent their agency or that it took a different legal position,” the high tribunal also pointed out.