CA affirms dismissal of official tied to scam

MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals (CA) has sustained the Ombudsman’s 2011 dismissal of a regional director at the Department of Agriculture (DA) who was charged with grave misconduct for his alleged participation in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.

In a seven-page ruling dated Nov. 6, the CA 17th Division dismissed for lack of merit the petition of Ricardo Oblena seeking a review of the March 18, 2011, Ombudsman decision  finding him guilty of grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the government  service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Oblena was among the DA’s regional directors who were charged administratively for entering into memorandums of agreement (MOAs) with local government units for the purchase of farm implements using the P728-million allocation released through the Farm Inputs/Farm Implement Fund in 2004, as ordered by then Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante, the alleged architect of the fertilizer fund scam.

The Ombudsman found that Oblena and his fellow regional directors had violated DA General Memorandum Order No. 2, which defined the authority behind the transfer of funds from the department to implementing agencies.

According to the memorandum order, it was the DA assistant secretary who should approve the transfer of funds to implementing agencies if the amount was P5 million and below. If the amount exceeded

P5 million but was less than P10 million, the MOA was subject to the approval of the undersecretary. For amounts exceeding P10 million, the approval of the agriculture secretary was needed.

The court did not agree with Oblena’s argument that general legislation must give way to special legislation, saying that DA GMO No. 2 “cannot be brushed aside by a memorandum issued by a DA undersecretary.

“Here, it is clear that petitioner knowingly violated a department regulation when he went beyond the scope of his authority. Worse, he failed to ascertain if the funds that he transferred to local government units and NGOs were properly appropriated,” said the CA ruling penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon.

The court said it did not buy Oblena’s defense that he was merely following his superiors’ orders.

“For the defense of superior orders to be valid, it must be shown that both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it, are acting within the limitations prescribed by law. Such is not the case here,” the CA said.