MANILA, Philippines—The Sandiganbayan anti-graft court’s Fifth Division has ordered the suspension of South Cotabato and General Santos City Representative Pedro Acharon for 90 days in connection with a graft case over his allegedly unauthorized issuance of travel orders to two Sangguniang Panglungsod members when he was mayor of General Santos City in 2006.
The anti-graft court said his suspension would begin from his receipt of a copy of its resolution unless he files a motion for reconsideration.
It said a copy of the resolution should be given to the Office of the Speaker of the House for implementation of the suspension order. The office should inform the court of its action within five days from receiving the ruling.
Acharon, along with Sangguniang Panglungsod members Jose Orlando Acharon and Minda Atendido, were earlier charged with violating the anti-graft law.
The lawmaker, while he was mayor, allegedly allowed Jose Orlando and Antendido to travel to Los Angeles, California, from June 9 to 16 in 2006 even though then Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno had disapproved the travel requests of the council members.
In its resolution suspending Acharon, the Sandiganbayan said that under the anti-graft law, it is mandatory that any public official validly charged with violating it must be suspended from office. It also noted that the court had already determined the validity of the charge against the lawmaker and found probable cause against him.
According to the court, the anti-graft law does not state that the public officer must be suspended only in the office where he was alleged to have committed the offense charged. He could be suspended even if he is holding another public office.
The court’s ruling stemmed from a motion filed by the prosecution seeking Acharon’s suspension.
Acharon had contested this plea and said there was no reason to suspend him because as an incumbent lawmaker, he poses no threat to the prosecution witnesses since he no longer holds office in General Santos City.
He also said neither the government witnesses nor the complainant were employed in General Santos City, and he could not pressure or influence them. He could not as well tamper with the documentary exhibits because these are in the possession of the government prosecutor.