Sugar Regulatory Administration
BACOLOD CITY – The Office of the President has dismissed the case against former Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) board members who were linked to the foiled importation of 300,000 metric tons (MT) of refined sugar in August 2022.
Among those absolved were former Agriculture Undersecretary Leocadio Sebastian, Administrator Hermenegildo Serafica of the SRA board, and board members Roland Beltran and Aurelio Gerardo Valderrama Jr.
All the respondents, charged with grave misconduct, grave dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, have since resigned from their posts.
In a 10-page decision, the Office of the President admonished the respondents to be more prudent in performing their duties.
Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin signed the decision by the authority of President Marcos.
In its decision, the Office of the President said the issuance of Sugar Order No. 4 was done in good faith, absent any showing that the respondents were aware of their lack of authority.
“The respondents thought they were authorized because of miscommunication,” the decision said.
The root cause of miscommunication is the memorandum from then Executive Secretary Victor Rodriguez dated July 15, 2022, which granted Sebastian authority to sign contracts, memorandum of agreement, administrative issuances, instruments, and administrative and financial documents necessary to carry out department objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs, and projects, for the efficient and effective operations of the DA.
In the instant case, Sugar Order No. 4 was prepared under a directive by the President to come up with an importation plan, the draft of which was sent to Rodriguez. Having not objected, the respondents could have assumed its approval, the decision said.
Thus, when Sebastian signed Sugar Order No. 4, this was upon an honest belief that he was authorized to do so.
“The manner by which Sebastian signed his name, over the printed name of the President, while not in accordance with the proper protocol, in the absence of bad faith, does not confer liability, particularly because there is no indication that he knew the implications thereof,” the Office of the President said.
It also found no clear and convincing evidence to suggest that the respondents committed any misconduct.
“Notably, there is no showing that respondents issued the order in order to materially benefit from it. Neither can respondents be guilty of dishonesty,” the decision said.
“There is no proof that respondents concealed the issuance of the order from the President. On the contrary, the attendant circumstances indicates respondents’ intention to apprise the President as to the preparation of and approval of Sugar Order No. 4,” it said.
RELATED STORY:
Senate panel recommends charges vs DA, SRA execs for sugar importation mess