Ombudsman drops suspension of 23 NFA execs in buffer stock sale
FILE PHOTO: Ombudsman Samuel Martires. INQUIRER FILES
MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman scrubbed the suspension order it earlier issued against 23 National Food Authority (NFA) officers linked to the allegedly anomalous sale of rice buffer stocks.
The 23 NFA warehouse supervisors were among the 139 employees and officials of the rice agency whom the Ombudsman placed under a six-month preventive suspension so they could not influence the probe into the supposed unfavorable sale of rice buffer stocks to private retailers.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires explained that the 23 individuals’ suspension was scrapped because their initial investigation showed that the Department of Agriculture (DA) provided them with incorrect data.
Some of the officers previously pointed out that the suspension order included deceased NFA employees.
“After conducting initial investigation ng mga imbestigador namin, itong mga nirekomenda nila na i-lift ang preventive suspension [para sa] mga warehouse supervisors sa Iloilo, Antique, Cabanatuan, basta mga 23 lahat eh – pero prior to that meron kaming ni-lift na preventive suspension na pinataw sa isang kawani ng NFA dahil sa maling data na binigay sa amin ng DA, na sabi ng DA bigay lang din sa kanila ng NFA,” Martires said in a radio interview with DZBB on Friday.
(After conducting an initial investigation by our investigators, they recommended that the preventive suspension be lifted [for] warehouse supervisors in Iloilo, Antique, Cabanatuan, some 23 in all – but prior to that we have already lifted the preventive suspension imposed on an NFA staff due to false data given to us by the DA, which the DA said was also given to them by the NFA.)
READ: NFA chief: ‘No irregularities in the disposition of rice stocks’
“Kasi syempre hindi naman namin pinulot lang sa punong-kahoy. Direct from directory ‘yong pangalan ng mga taong ‘yan, humingi kami ng mga listahan ng tao – regional director, branch manager, at saka warehouse supervisor from the Department of Agriculture. Binigay sa amin ‘yan at ang sabi lang galing ang listahan na ‘yan sa NFA,” he added.
(Of course, we didn’t just pick the names of those people from the tree. The names came directly from the directory, we asked for lists of people – regional directors, branch managers, and warehouse supervisors from the Department of Agriculture. That was given to us and they just said the list came from the NFA.)
Martires pointed out that if there were inaccuracies in the list, it was not their fault but of the agencies that provided the names of the employees allegedly involved in the controversy.
Martires then warned that they intend to get to the bottom of this matter.
“So kung meron kaming pagkakamali sa listahan na ‘yan, hindi namin kasalanan ‘yon. Kung merong nanloko sa amin, kung mali, hindi ko alam sino’ng nanloko sa amin, so pinaimbestigahan ko rin ‘to, sino’ng nanloko sa amin,” he said.
(So if we have a mistake in that list, it’s not our fault. If someone tricked us, if it’s wrong, I don’t know who tricked us, so I also had it investigated, who tricked us.)
READ: Suspended NFA workers: Our task just ‘ministerial’
“Ayokong magsalita tungkol do’n (malice and intent) pero hindi maganda ‘yon, kung sa tingin nila niloloko nila ang opisina ng Ombudsman nagkakamali sila, ang niloloko nila ang taumbayan,” he added.
(I don’t want to talk about that (malice and intent), but that’s not good; if they think they’re fooling the Ombudsman’s office, they’re wrong, they’re fooling the people.)
NFA Administrator Roderico Bioco is among the suspended officials. Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. previously announced that the suspension orders took effect on March 4.
Laurel also said the preventive suspension order is a stern warning to government officials who are testing the resolve of the current administration to cleanse government agencies.
However, more than a hundred of the suspended NFA employees complained that their involvement in the sale of the rice buffer stocks was merely “ministerial” because they did not have discretionary powers to control operations within the rice agency. They also asked the Ombudsman to reverse the decision.
