Purisima gets no immediate relief vs suspension order
PNP Chief Alan Purisima. FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines–Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Alan Purisima failed to get immediate relief from the Court of Appeals on Wednesday over his suspension order.
This, after the appeals court ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to comment on his petition questioning the legality of the preventive suspension order imposed against him.
The appeals court’s 10th division gave the Ombudsman 10 days to comment.
“Without necessarily giving due course to the petition, this court hereby directs the [Office of the Ombudsman] to file comment and to show cause why the application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction should not be granted, within a non-extendible period of 10 days,” the appeals court Special 10th Division said in a resolution.
“In the meantime, action on petitioner’s application for issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction is held in abeyance pending submission of the aforesaid pleadings (comment and if Purisima wants to file a reply to the comment),” the appeals court further stated.
Purisima, in his 21-page petition for certiorari, told the appeals court that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering his preventive suspension.
Purisima, through his lawyer Kristoffer James Purisima, said there was no sufficient ground to justify the suspension order.
Under Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, particularly Section 24, preventive suspension is given only if in the Ombudsman’s judgment, the evidence of guilt is strong and the charge against the officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty.
In this case, however, the order of preventive suspension “is not supported by substantial evidence and is in violation of law and/or jurisprudence since there is no evidence of guilt whatsoever against petitioner (Purisima),” the petition stated.
On Thursday (Dec. 4), the Office of the Ombudsman ordered a six-month preventive suspension against Purisima and other police officials over a questionable contract with courier service company Werfast Documentary Agency in 2011.
But the appeal explained that Purisima did not recommend a specific service provider in delivering firearms license cards of gun owners.
The petition stated that what Purisima approved was only the manner of distributing the license firearms cards and nothing else.
“With all due respect, by whatever stretch of the imagination, that’s hardly evidence of petitioner’s alleged gross negligence and/or gross neglect of duty, which connotes breach of duty that is flagrant and palpable. No such breach of duty exists on the part of petitioner,” the petition explained.
It added that even before Purisima signed the memorandum on the manner of distributing firearms license cards, it passed through several offices including the Acting Director for Operations (TADO), the Acting Chief of the Directorial Staff (TACDS), the Deputy Chief for Operations (TDCO) and the Deputy Chief for Administration (TDCA).
“Thus, petitioner was not obligated to personally verify or check the entire records in relation to the accreditation of Werfast Documentation Agency Inc. Petitioner may rightfully rely on the recommendations of his subordinates absent any clear showing that said recommendations are without factual or legal basis, invalid and/or irregular,” the petition stated.
Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Arias v. Sandiganbayan, the petition stated that “we would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems-dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions…is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail…in a transaction before affixing his signature.”
Moreover, Purisima added that following the Ombudsman order, it would appear that she has already prejudged his case after the order stated that he conspired with other officials of the PNP.
“Preventive suspension is but only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation and is not in the nature of a punishment or penalty,” he said adding that “the assailed order already takes the form of a penalty, contrary to the nature of a preventive suspension and contrary to the fact that petitioner is not party of any such conspiracy.”
Lawyer Purisima added that there was no compelling necessity to preventively suspend the PNP chief.
Under the Ombudsman Act, a public official may be preventively suspended if his continued stay in office may influence the possible outcome of the investigation against him.
In this case, he said Purisima has no means to tamper, influence evidence against him because the investigation is not with the PNP but with the Ombudsman.
The case stemmed from an anonymous complaint and another complaint filed by a certain Glenn Gerard Ricafranca. They alleged that the officials siphoned funds from the mandatory delivery fees paid by gun owners in securing their gun licenses, through the PNP entering into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with Werfast for courier services in the delivery of firearms license cards. Werfast, the complainants said, was incorporated only after the execution of the MOA, with a capitalization of only P65,000.
Purisima and several other PNP officials were preventively suspended pending administrative charges for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty against them.
