Mayor Alice Leal Guo of Bamban, Tarlac on Thursday, June 6, asked the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to lift her six-month preventive suspension on administrative charges filed against her. 

In her motion, Guo told the OMB her suspension should be lifted "on the ground that grave errors of facts or law or serious irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant (Guo)."

The OMB ordered the preventive suspension for not more than six months of  Guo and two other town officials after finding that there is strong evidence against them in the administrative charges of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, and gross neglect of duty.

Also preventively suspended without pay in an order dated May 31, 2024 issued by Ombudsman Samuel R. Martires were Business Permit and Licensing Officer Edwin Ocampo and Municipal Legal Officer Adenn Sigua.

Through David & Jamilla Law Offices, Guo pointed out in her motion for reconsideration and plea to lift suspension that the evidence of guilt against her for administrative offenses is not strong and there is no substantial evidence to prove all the elements of the charges.

"The evidence against respondent Guo does not rest on substantial evidence considering that the allegations in the complaint have no basis either in fact and in law, based on mere surmises, speculations, opinions, and questionable findings without the required quantum of evidence," the motion said.

The complaint filed by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) accused Guo and other town officials of their failure to discharge their duties with respect to the issuance of business permits to Zun Yuan Technology, Inc. and its predecessor, Hongsheng.

The motion pointed out that the allegations were all "conclusory" as Guo merely acted within the scope of her duty. It said that Zun Yuan applied for the renewal of its business permit on Jan. 17, 2024, and it was issued only after the company complied with all the documents submitted to the Business Process and Licensing Office (BPLO) and payment of required fees.

"Here, there is no proof that respondent Guo was motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or deliberate intent of violating the law or any established rule," the motion stated. "There is neither proof nor concrete evidence that she used her position to benefit herself or another person," it said.

Guo's motion stated that all the other allegations -- such as her investments in Baofu and her land titles -- can hardly be considered as dishonest acts.

Also, the motion stated that "the allegation that respondents (Guo and other town officials named in the DILG complaint) may influence witnesses or tamper with any evidence material to the case is without basis and was merely thrown to conveniently place her under suspension."

"Wherefore, premises considered, Guo most respectfully and humbly prays that the Order of Preventive Suspension be immediately lifted and that herein respondent should not be held liable for any administrative charges," Guo pleaded.