The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has approved the filing of graft charges against former Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioner Rowena Amalia V. Guanzon for the alleged premature disclosure to the public in 2022 confidential information on the disqualification case against then candidate and now President Marcos that was then pending before the poll body.
“With the respondent’s (Guanzon) improper disclosure of confidential information, this Office finds probable cause to indict her for violations of Section 3(k) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as amended,” the OMB said in a resolution by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Fatima Kristine J. Franco-Ilao.
The OMB said Guanzon is facing indictments for two counts of violating Section 3(k) of RA 3019, as amended, “for prematurely disclosing confidential information during her interview conducted by Sandra Aquinaldo on 27 January 2022 and by Paterno Esmaquel II on 28 January 2022.”
Section 3K of RA 3019 punishes a public official "for divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date."
Prior to the release of the Comelec’s Feb. 10, 2022 resolution penned by Commissioner Aimee P. Ferolino that dismissed the disqualification case against Marcos, the OMB said Guanzon, who retired from the Comelec on Feb. 3, 2022, made separate interviews with Aquinaldo who is a reporter of GMA network and Esmaquel, a news editor of Rappler.
“Records disclose that by virtue of respondent’s position, she acquired valuable information relating to the disqualification cases of Marcos, Jr. and she prematurely divulged such confidential information prior to the official release of the Comelec's decision,” the OMB said.
“In an interview with Sandra Aquinaldo, she (Guanzon) announced her vote to disqualify Marcos Jr. from the presidential race. Then, in another interview with Paterno Esmaquel II, she named and identified the ponente who will write the Resolution and discussed the contents of her separate opinion on the disqualification cases. She divulged these information while the cases were still pending and were being considered by the Comelec First Division and before the release of their Resolution,” it said.
The OMB reminded that the Comelec, itself, had adopted Resolution No. 10685, also known as “In the Matter of People’s Freedom of Information Manual,” which “recognizes exceptions to the right of access of information.”
Citing Resolution No. 10685, the OMB said the exemptions include: “Information, documents or records known by reason of official capacity and are deemed confidential, including those submitted or disclosed by entities to government agencies, tribunals, boards, or officers, in relation to the performance of their function, or to inquiries or investigation conducted by them in the exercise of their administrative, regulatory or quasi-judicial powers.”
“Thus, all information acquired by respondent in the exercise of her quasi-judicial powers are considered confidential information,” it stated.
It said that the Supreme Court (SC), in its Internal Rules, “recognizes privilege information and prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the ponente and the deliberations of the members in court sessions on cases and matters pending before it.”
Though Guanzon argued that the SC has clear policies unlike the Comelec, the OMB, cited SC's full court resolution dated Feb. 14, 2012 which states: "The Supreme Court is clear in holding that the privilege against disclosure of internal deliberations is not exclusive to the Judiciary but is applicable to other branches of the government.”
The charges against Guanzon stemmed from the May 27, 2022 complaint filed by Citizen’s Crime Watch Chairman Ferdinand S. Topacio and President Diego S. Magpantay who sought that Guanzon be indicted for two counts of violating Section 3(k) of RA 3019, as amended; two counts of violating Section 7(c) of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; and two counts of revelation of secrets by an officer under Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
However, the OMB dismissed the complaints for violations of Section 7(c) of RA 6713 and Article 229 of the RPC.
“Complainants failed to present proof that respondent was motivated by any private interest or that she gave any private party unwarranted benefits, which prompted the disclosure of the information. There is no proof that respondent intended to prejudice the public interest with such disclosure,” the graft investigator explained in dismissing the allegation of violating Section 7(c) of RA 6713.
In dismissing the charge of violating Article 229 of the RPC, the OMB said “the information revealed by the respondent are not secret and there is no evidence that said premature disclosure of the information caused damage to the public interest."