|
THE
Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Ombudsman to dismiss
the administrative and criminal charges against former
Land Registration Authority (LRA) administrator Alfredo
Enriquez and two other officials of the agency owing to
violation of their constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of their cases.
In a
14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Angelina
Sandoval-Gutierrez, the court’s First Division granted
the petition for mandamus filed by Enriquez, LRA
Inspection and Investigation Division chief Rhandolfo
Amansec and LRA Law Division head Gener Endona seeking
the dismissal of the complaint filed against them by the
Ombudsman’s Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB)
in connection with bidding of the Land Titling
Computerization Project of the agency.
The
Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman violated its
constitutional duty to act promptly on any complaint
against a public officer or employee.
It noted
that the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman requires
that the hearing officer is given a definite period of
not later than 30 days to resolve cases after the formal
investigation shall have been concluded.
In the
case of the petitioners, the High Court noted that the
complaint against them was filed on
May 9, 2000, and that the petitioners had been seeking for the
early resolution of their cases since 2002 considering
that all the evidence had been formally offered and the
parties’ arguments have already been submitted.
And
despite the petitioners’ repeated personal follow-ups,
still the Ombudsman failed to resolve their cases until
now.
It
stressed that on
March 24, 2006
or six years from the filing of the
complaints-affidavits, Enriquez and the two officials
filed a motion to dismiss all the cases against them,
saying that the Ombudsman’s “inordinate delay” in
resolving their cases constitutes a violation of their
constitutional right to speedy disposition of the cases
against them.
The
court also noted that the complainant FFIB, despite
notice, did not object to petitioners’ motion to dismiss
and yet the cases have remained unresolved.
Owing to
the Ombudsman’s inaction on their cases, the petitioners
filed the petition for mandamus before the SC, seeking
the dismissal of their cases.
“It’s
unfortunate that while petitioners exerted diligent
efforts by filing several motions urging respondent to
resolve their cases speedily, respondent, up to now,
refuses to take action,” the SC said.
“Clearly, respondent’s inaction does not only violate
petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of their cases
guaranteed by the Constitution, but is also opposed to
its role as the vanguard in the promotion of efficient
service by the government to the people in ensuring
accountability in public office,” it added.
The
inaction of the Ombudsman, according to the SC,
constitutes violation of due process.
The SC
also said the Ombudsman’s excuse that the
prosecutors assigned to these cases are still reviewing
and evaluating them with extreme care to arrive at a
just determination “is not only unreasonable but also an
afterthought.”
Enriquez, Endona and Amansec were charged before the
Ombudsman for violation of the Antigraft and Corrupt
Practices Act or Republic Act 3019, Republic Act 6713,
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, gross neglect of duty,
inefficiency, incompetence in the performance of
official duties, grave misconduct and dishonesty. |