The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the immediate preventive suspension of Catanduanes Vice Governor Robert Fernandez and 11 members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan over alleged irregularities involving the province’s Quick Response Fund (QRF) following the onslaught of Super Typhoon Uwan in November last year.

In an order dated May 22, the Ombudsman found sufficient grounds to place Fernandez and the provincial board members under preventive suspension without pay for up to six months pending the resolution of the administrative case.

Included in the suspension order were Sangguniang Panlalawigan members Josevan Balidoy, Giovanni Balmadrid, Jose Romeo Francisco, Alvin Rodriguez, Edwin Tanael, Lorenzo Templonuevo Jr., Arnel Turado, Dean Roberto Vergara, Tito Villamor, Santos Zafe, and Rafael Zuniega.

The complaint stemmed from allegations by Catanduanes Governor Patrick Alain Azanza over the improper allocation and utilization of the province’s ₱30.5 million QRF.

According to the complaint, the respondents, acting as the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, moved to allocate more than ₱26 million for cash assistance instead of goods and other relief items.

Azanza vetoed the ordinance, citing DBM-DILG-NDRRMC Joint Circular 2013-1, which he said does not include cash assistance among the allowable immediate response activities.

The governor also argued that the respondents’ actions delayed the utilization of the QRF and “impeded the provincial government from addressing the urgent needs” of more than 39,000 affected families.

Also cited in the complaint was the alleged deferment of a request authorizing the provincial government to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development for the provision of construction materials for typhoon victims.

The respondents were also accused of causing delays in the enactment of the province’s 2026 budget and issuing a January resolution declaring Azanza persona non grata in Catanduanes.

In the order, the Ombudsman said there was “strong evidence showing their guilt” for the administrative charges of grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The order further stated that the respondents’ “continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation of the case filed against them.”

The Ombudsman also said preventive suspension was necessary because “there is a need to preserve the documents and evidence pertaining to this case which they may have control and custody” and to prevent the “further commission of malfeasance and/or misfeasance in office.”

Under the order, the respondents will remain under suspension without pay for a period not exceeding six months while the administrative proceedings are ongoing.