Think tank confident Ombudsman will junk petition on Chiong case

Former Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) General Manager Cesar Chiong and Ombudsman Samuel Martires. MIAA/INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines— Policy think tank Infrawatch PH on Saturday expressed confidence that Ombudsman Samuel Martires will not be dissuaded by the petition of business groups seeking the reversal of the dismissal order against former Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) General Manager Cesar Chiong.

Infrawatch PH convenor lawyer Terry Ridon said Martires has shown his independence in the anti-graft court’s previous rulings on other controversial cases such as the laptop anomaly at the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Pharmally issue.

“What is important here is the available evidence that served as basis to dismiss Mr. Chiong and if the basis for that is clear, there is no reason to revoke the decision.

“In recent weeks, the Ombudsman has decided on two important Duterte administration cases: the laptop case, the Pharmally (scandal),” Mr. Ridon said.

“The Ombudsman had a clear sense of the political impact of all these decisions including this Chiong decision, so I am quite certain that he made that decision, it was based on law, it was based on the fact, it was based on evidence,” he added.

Martires showed his independence during his first year in office when he withdrew the complaint for usurpation of authority against the late president Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III before the Sandiganbayan.

Former Ombudsman Conchita Morales had filed a case of dereliction of duty against Aquino in connection with the controversial SAF 44 case. Martires withdrew it during the administration of former president Rodrigo Duterte.

In the Chiong case, nine business groups have issued a statement urging the Ombudsman to reverse its decision, stressing Chiong’s exemplary work as manager of the airport. They also expressed support for MIAA acting assistant general manager Irene Montalbo.

Among the signatories to the joint statement are the Makati Business Club, Brotherhood of Christian Businessmen & Professionals, Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce & Industry Inc., Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, IT & Business Process Association of the Philippines, Integrity Initiative, Justice Reform Initiative, Semiconductor and Electronics Industries in the Philippines Foundation Inc. and the Philippine Hotel Owners Association (PHOA).

“Nothing stopping them in raising the profile of Mr. Chiong and going to his defense, but I am quite certain that the Ombudsman will not be dissuaded and more importantly the real remedy for Mr. Chiong is to file a motion for reconsideration,” Ridon said of the statement.

“And if he fails to file an MR, go to higher authority, to the Court of Appeals to plead his case. If he feels wronged by that decision, he still has the remedy up until the Supreme Court, he can still go up to the Supreme Court,” he added.

“But the Ombudsman will not reverse its decision on the clamor of business groups that are unrelated to the case. I guess (they are) offering testimony on his character and his reputation to the business community, but the Chiong case will rise and fall not because of petitions by business groups.

“It will rise and fall on the basis of the evidence that is with the Ombudsman,” Ridon said.

“We have to reiterate, and I am speaking as a lawyer, and as an analyst in public investment, it is not a good form to change a decision on the basis only of testimonies relating to a person’s reputation like petitions made by third parties, have no relation to the case on which he is being prosecuted,” he continued.

“The facts of the case would still be more important than the statement of the influential groups,” he noted.

“Mr. Chiong has been working with the government and has been working with the business sector for a couple of years already. The Ombudsman will treat it as a high-level case in comparison to the other cases he decided on in DepEd and Pharmally.
“Which means, I am certain that he made the decision clearly on the basis of evidence, clearly on the basis of facts and the law of the case and if there was wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Chiong. He called it as he saw it,” Ridon added.