Balili lot sale papers were ‘elusive’
There’s no room for “cavalier treatment” of the public’s right to know.
Four days before resigning as Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez dismissed the petition of Cebu lawyers who complained that public documents on the Balili land deal were not released to them.
The lawyers went to the Supreme Court last Friday to challenge the decision.
Lawyers Gloria Estenzo-Ramos and Benjamin Cabrido said their petition for certiorari was one of the few cases where a citizen’s use of the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) or 2007 would be tested.
The lawyers, who are co-founders of the Phil. Earth Justice Center (PEJC), asked the court to declare “void and unconstitutional” the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss an administrative complaint filed in 2009 against Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia and members of the Provincial Board over access to the Balili property papers.
At the time, the controversy over the 24.7-hectare Balili resort was just starting to heat up over allegations that part of the land bought in Naga City was underwater or covered by spurious titles.
The environment lawyers invoked Republic Act 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act which says applications or requests to government offices must be responded to in five days for simple transactions and 10 days for complex transactions.
Ramos and Cabrido said their pursuit showed the vital documents to be elusive.
They wrote to the governor and the PB in July 2, 2009, asking for copies of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Korean Electric Company and the Province of Cebu about its plan to host an ash disposal facility in the Balili property, as well as the Deed of Sale, and Statements of Income and Expenditures of the Province for the past three years.
A second letter was sent July 31. Both letters warned that violating the ARTA could mean sanction of 30 days suspension for the first offense and 3 months suspension for the second offense.
There was no reply to both letters. When the lawyers sent a staff representative to the Capitol, she was referred from one office to another with no results.
After that, the lawyers filed a case with the Visayas Deputy Ombudsman.
Ombudsman Gutierrez on April 25 dismissed the complaint, four days before handing her resignation to President Aquino.
She agreed with the Capitol’s argument that the ARTA covers employees in the “frontline services” or those involved in the processing of applications and other documents.
She adopted the province’s stand that they didn’t ignore the request of the two environment lawyers since Capitol consultant Rory Jon Sepulveda in mid-August announced in a press conference the availability of the documents and asked the lawyers to get them from the office.
Ramos and Cabrido, in their petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, said the respondents should be held liable for violating the Anti-Red Tape Act and Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
They said the Ombudsman gravely abused her discretion and took lightly the clear provisions of law about the duty of public officials.
Under Section 5 (a) and (e) of RA 6713, “ Duties of Public Officials and Employees,” government personnel are under obligation to: act promptly on letters and requests within 15 working days from receipt sent by the public as well as “ make documents accessible to the public” and “readily available for inspection within reasonable working hours.”
They stressed the importance of the Anti-Red Tape Act as a “highly empowering law” to promote good public service.
“If properly implemented by government agencies and vigorously asserted by citizens, ARTA can be a key tool for improving not just efficiency in public service and the waning public trust in government, but also the country’s global competitiveness,” they said.
Ramos and Cabrido said the notorious inefficiency and red tape in Philippine bureaucracy have long hampered both human and economic development in our country.
“This Petition is of supreme significance as it touches at the core of a public interest issue the cavalier treatment of which, if allowed to be perpetuated and institutionalized, will render nugatory the avowed State policies of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest, honesty and integrity in the public service,” they said.
Aside from Governor Garcia, named respondents in the complaint are Board Members Julian Daan, Wilfredo Caminero, Peter John Calederon, Ian Zambo, and Joven Mondido Jr.
Former Vice Gov. Gregorio Sanchez used to be one of the respondents but is freed from any liability following his death on May 2.
Board Members Juan Bolo, Victoria, Coronimas, Rosemarie Durano, Victor Maambong, Wencesalo Gakit, Bea Calderon, Teresita Celis and Alfredo Ouano are not impleaded as respondents because they are no longer in the government.
