Ombudsman’s dismissal of Miaa chief based on anonymous letter hailed
Former Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) General Manager Cesar Chiong and Ombudsman Samuel Martires. (INQUIRER file photos)
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman is required by law to respond to public complaints against authorities, even if they come from anonymous persons, so long as evidence supports the grievances.
Trabaho Party-list made this statement after several business groups questioned the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss Manila International Airport Authority (Miaa) chief Cesar Chiong.
The ombudsman’s action was prompted by an anonymous letter.
The party-list agrees with the resolution of the body created to investigate government officials.
“The Office of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman himself are not above the law,” Trabaho Party-list Secretary General Juan Paolo Lorica said in a statement on Wednesday.
“Republic Act 6770 compels Justice Samuel Martires, as it did his predecessors-in-office, not to discriminate against anonymous complaints as long as he is confronted with concrete evidence against a public official.
“In fact, the Constitution empowers the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate, on its own, any illegal or unjust act possibly committed by those in government,” he added.
In August, the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal of Chiong and assistant general manager Irene Montalbo, the Miaa officer in charge, for grave abuse of authority and misconduct.
Based on the Ombudsman’s 21-page decision, the dismissal stemmed from the charges made by persons who only identified themselves as Miaa officials.
They had criticized Chiong’s order to reassign about 285 employees, allegedly without any basis, after he assumed office in July last year.
According to Lorica, Ombudsman’s investigation showed various Miaa employees were transferred to “a division or department or designated to a position where they have no knowledge or experience and could not function well in a manner that said division or department needs.”
“There is nothing to stop the public from speculating whether that particular decision contributed to the power interruptions in the airport. We continue to stand by the Office of the Ombudsman as it fulfills its sworn mandate,” he said.
“The law pertaining to personnel movement is not intended as a convenient shield for an appointing or disciplining officer to harass or oppress a subordinate on the pretext of advancing and promoting the public interest,” he added.
RELATED STORIES:
Groups alarmed by dismissal of MIAA execs due to anonymous complaint
MIAA chief, assistant GM dismissed from service for abuse of authority, misconduct
