REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Malacaang, Manila HON. MATILDE K. HENSONSALES, Petitioner, -versusO.P. Case No.

__________ (Adm. Case No. 2011-003, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte)

HON. IMEE R. MARCOS, SANGGUNIAN PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE, MARIFE A. DE VILLA, and MIGUEL P. BALATERO, Respondents, x----------------------------------------------------x COMMENT COMES NOW respondent Hon. Imee R. Marcos, through the Provincial most Legal Office, submit unto her the Most Honorable and Office

respectfully

comment

respectfully

asseverate: That on June 30, 2011, she received a letter coming from Hon. Jesse M. Robredo, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, requiring her to submit her comment in relation to the aforementioned case, within five (5) days from notice thereof; PREFATORY STATEMENT The purpose of preventive suspension pendent lite is to prevent the officer or employee from using his position and the power and prerogatives of his office to intimidate or in any way influence potential witnesses or to destroy or tamper with records which may be vital in the

2|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

prosecution of the case against him. (Bunye vs. Escareal, 226 SCRA 332) COUNTER-STATEMENTS OF FACTS On November 8, 2010, Provincial Resolution No. 0142010 was passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte. The Resolution is entitled: A Resolution strongly urging Aoyang Marine Co. Ltd. to cause the mandatory

removal of MV Namyang 8 which ran aground on the shores of Brgy. Balaoi, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, copy of which is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex A; Previously, on July 15, 2010, Municipal Resolution No. 2010-B-003 (A resolution authorizing the Local Chief

Executive Honorable Matilde K. Henson- Sales to represent the Municipality of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte with various

private and government entities for the immediate removal of MV Namyang 8 vessel from its shorelines to prevent the occurrence Bayan of of oil spill) Ilocos was passed A by the of Sangguniang the said

Pagudpud,

Norte.

copy

resolution is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex B; Then later, on December 3, 2010, Municipal Resolution No. 2010B-027 was passed by the Sannguniang Bayan of

Pagudpud, adopting provincial resolution no. 014-2010 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte which is a resolution strongly urging Aoyang Marine Co. Ltd. to cause

3|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

the mandatory removal of MV Namyang 8 which ran aground on the shores of Brgy. Balaoi, Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte and

forthwith reiterating the request to Aoyang Marine Co. Ltd. to immediately cause the immediate removal of said vessel from the shores of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte. A copy of the said resolution is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex C; After hearings raised. As stated in the petition, the Municipality of the filing been of the administrative to address complaint, issues

have

conducted

various

Pagudpud filed before the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte a complaint which prayed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which TRO was granted for twenty (20) days but was eventually dissolved. The Court did not extend the

restraining order after the lapse of 20 days; ISSUES This case delves into the following main issues -

whether or not: 1. The imposition of the preventive suspension was in accordance with law; 2. The Office of the President of cannot Ilocos (de prohibit Norte Villa the from vs.

Sangguniang proceeding Sales)

Panlalawigan with A.C. No.

2011-003

3. The petition has merit

4|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

DISCUSSIONS THE IMPOSITION OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Under the Local Government Code: SEC. 63. Preventive Suspension. (a) Preventive

suspension may be imposed: xxx (2) By the governor, if the respondent is an elective official of a component city or

municipality; or xxx (b) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when the evidence of

guilt is strong, and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in

office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence: X X X Preventive suspension was not a punishment or penalty for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. If after such

investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated removal, then is he found is guilty or of acts warranting This is his the

removed

dismissed.

5|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

penalty.

There

is,

therefore,

nothing

improper

in

suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the charges against to prove him are heard and he given an and

opportunity

his

innocence.1

(Emphasis

underscoring supplied). In another case2, the Supreme Court pronounced that: clearly, the by provincial law at of to governor of Oriental the Mindoro is

authorized mayor joined exist: of

preventively time after

suspend the

municipal had been to

Naujan any

any the

issues were

and

following

grounds

shown

1. When there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of; 2. When the evidence of culpability is strong; 3. When the gravity of the offense so warrants; or 4. When the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In the aforementioned case, all of the said

requirements were present, viz: First, the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte

gave a copy of the complaint-affidavit to the petitioner which enables her to controvert the same. Second, the petitioner submitted her answer.

1 2

Nera vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-13160, January 30, 1960 Espiritu vs. Melgar, G.R. No 100874, February 13, 1992

6|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

Moreover, the parties in the aforementioned case were even required to submit their position paper in addition to the hearings conducted which would show that the issued have already been joined. After the initial presentation of evidence by the

parties and the conduct of several dates of hearings, the Sangguniang reasonable Panlalawigan ground to of Ilocos that Norte the have reached a

believe

petitioner

has

committed the act complained of which was based on evidence presented and the same rest upon the determination of the said august body without the influence of anyone; Stated questioned evidence of otherwise, resolution, guilt is the are Sanggunian, morally While in passing that have the the not

convinced they may

strong.

indicated the same in the resolution is beyond the point. What matters is the existence of the strong evidence to warrant the passage of said resolution. Another, the matters taken up during the preliminary hearings showed that petitioners fault is overwhelming. Petitioner was bombarded with numerous accusations

which are GRAVE MISCONDUCT, GROSS DISRESPECT AND DEFIANCE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ILOCOS NORTE, GROSS INSUBORDINATION AND GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW and all are so grave by its nature. The probability of the commission of the foregoing are discussed below.

7|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

Lastly,

it

is

common

knowledge

that

petitioner,

among others, is known to be using heavily armed police officers in confronting the private respondents in this

case. There was also this incident whereby the petitioner have sent several armed police officers and took the 30 oxygen tank while the same was in possession by the private respondents. If the petitioner shall be tolerated in power, there is a great possibility that herein petitioner could influence the witnesses in the outcome of this case due to fear and intimidation and not to mention that the records and other evidence in relation may be compromised by virtue of her office. So what quantum of evidence more is needed to show petitioners capability of intimidating persons or altering evidence? Preventive respondent may suspension not through hamper the is the use allowed normal of his so that of the the and

course

investigation

influence

authority over possible witnesses.3 As gleaned above, preventive suspension was designed to enable the disciplining authority to investigate charges against a respondent by preventing the respondent from

intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against him or to tamper any record which the petitioners office could easily perform;

Lacson vs. Roque, 92 Phil. 456

8|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

The public

imposition

of

the not

preventive attended

suspension grave

by

the of

respondent

was

with

abuse

authority but was supported on the evidence presented by the parties and that the same was made in utmost good faith with no evil motive. The petitioner was giving the perception that the

actions of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte and Governor Imee R. Marcos were made maliciously against her. But, it must be reminded that the said public officers, being public officials, enjoy the presumption of regularity of performance of duties. Such presumption can be overcome only by strong and convincing evidence which the petitioner could not even present an iota of evidence to substantiate her allegation; Furthermore, the preventive suspension was imposed as a measure of precaution so that the petitioner who is

charged maybe separated, for obvious reason, from the scene of her alleged misfeasance while the same is being

investigated. To grant otherwise would open a floodgate of petitions restraining the normal course of investigation by erring public official so as to frustrate the end of justice and also to undermine the independence of the investigating body.

9|Page Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

In the case of Castillo-Co vs. Barbers4 the Supreme Court enunciated Petitioners high position likewise gives her access to public records and the cloud to influence possible witness. Her continued stay in office may thus prejudice the prosecution of the case filed against her. It is immaterial that, as petitioner contends, no evidence has been adduced to prove that petitioner may influence

possible witnesses or may tamper with the public records. It is sufficient that there exists such a possibility. One of the many grounds that have been filed against herein petitioner was gross disrespect and defiance of the authority of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte and gross insubordination. As stated above, the continuous presence of the said ramshackled vessel in the shoreline of Pagudpud, Ilocos

Norte would worsen the impact of the ecological marine life in the surrounding of said ship; The Sannguniang Bayan of Pagudpud and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan are in one for the immediate removal of the vessel; but petitioner wanted to cling on to her own whims. Are these not defiance of a lawful desires of the two

august bodies, an insult so glaring under the guise of insurance claims? Or are there personal interests involved to the extent of defying the sentiments of the honourable sanggunians? These are just questions which need to be

G.R. No. 129952, June 16, 1998

10 | P a g e Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

dispelled to eliminate suspicion as to the sincerity of petitioner in going this far. These sort of indescritions insubordination of petitioner, are strong or shall we say the

legs

where

Sangguniang Panlalawigan stands in issuing the questioned resolution. Moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Bangui, Ilocos Norte have never up to date extended the restraining order after the lapse of 20 days, hence, the vessel can be

removed. To do otherwise is a blatant disregard of the rule of law which again, adds up to the culpability of

petitioner. As a matter of fact Sangguniang Bayan of Pagudpud have been reiterating for several times the request to Aoyang Marine Co. Ltd. to immediately cause the immediate removal of said vessel from the shores of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte; As to the claim for damages by the said municipality the same can be satisfied thru the insurance proceeds of the ship, through the assets of the shipping company and many other ways to collect the same; Also, petitioner averred that the private respondents were not the real party in interest in this case hence, the case must be dismissed. Unfortunately, the contention of the petitioner is

misplaced. In numerous cases decided by the Supreme Court,

11 | P a g e Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

it was enunciated that The purpose of an administrative proceeding is to protect the public service, based on the time- honoured principle that a public office is a public trust and complainants are, in real sense, only witnesses therein(Carman vs. Zerrudo, February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 1); The actuation of Gov. Imee R. Marcos in approving the resolution by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was made in good faith out of the evidence presented and the recommendation of the unanimous vote of the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. After all, preventive suspension is a part of the

overall due process afforded to the respondent as provided for by law. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT CANNOT PROHIBIT THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE FROM PROCEEDING WITH A.C. NO. 2011-003 (De Villa vs. Sales) THE PETITION HAS NO MERIT The Office of the President has no jurisdiction in the aforementioned case. The Local Government Code is explicit: SECTION 67. ADMINISTRATIVE may, within APPEALS thirty Decisions days in

administrative

cases

(30)

from

receipt thereof, be appealed to the following: (b) The Office of the President, in the case

decisions of the sangguniang panlalawigan and the

12 | P a g e Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

sangguniang

panlungsod

of

highly

urbanized

cities

and independent component cities. The preventive suspension order is akin to an

interlocutory order that is not subject to appeal before the Office of the President inasmuch that the same is not a final order or decision which the Office of the President can validly assume. Moreover, under the Local Government Code, the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other bodies in deciding an administrative case against an

elective municipal official inasmuch that the law does not provide concurrent body to assume the same. Another, preventive suspension order is akin to an

interlocutory order. And under the law, interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case and does not end the tribunals task of adjudicating the parties contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards

each other. On the other hand, a decision or final judgment

disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the tribunal in respect thereto; The Office of the President has only the appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan and not an original jurisdiction;

13 | P a g e Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

The

petitioner

should

have

filed

petition

for

certiorari against the respondents before the appropriate court of the judiciary because the latter is clothed with judicial powers to resolve the same unlike the Office of the President. In another case decided by the Supreme Court, it was then articulated, was of After The filed Pampanga administrative with in complaint against

petitioner Panlalawigan provision.

respondent with of

Sanggunian the above

accordance the order

receiving

respondent

Sangguniang Panlalawigan preventively suspending him from office, petitioner should have filed a motion for

reconsideration in order to give the latter the opportunity to correct itself if there was any error on its part. Such a motion is for a condition sine qua non before G. filing a

petition

certiorari.

(Mayor

Edgardo

Flores

vs.

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, Gov. Manuel M. Lapid, etc., G.R. No. 159022, February 23, 2005); As gleaned also from the records to file of this its to the case, motion mandate the for as

petitioner

failed runs

reconsideration

which

contrary

enunciated by the abovementioned law which is a condition sine qua non before filing the same before the courts. WHEREFORE, respectfully premises of this considered, Honorable it Office is that most the

prayed

Urgent Petition to set aside Preventive Suspension Order,

14 | P a g e Answer, Sales vs. Marcos et.al Office of the President

Annulment of Memo No. 022-2011 and S.P. Resolution No. 0482011 and the prayer of the petitioner prohibiting and

enjoining the respondent Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte from further proceeding with A.C. No. 2011-003 be all DENIED for lack of utter merit. Other just and equitable reliefs available under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Laoag City for Manila, July 6, 2011. PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICE Province of Ilocos Norte Capitol, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte BY: ATTY. JASON BADER LL. PERERA LEGAL OFFICER II Roll of Attorneys No. 54820 IBP No. 809665-01/05/11 PTR NO. 0182325-L.C.-1/-11/2011 MCLE No. III-0020616 EXPLANATION Service and filing is done by Registered mail Due to distance and lack of manpower to effect personal service.

ATTY. JASON BADER LL. PERERA Copy Furnished Atty. OSCAR G. RARO R.R. No. _______ 44-i Jocson Street, Loyola Heights, Quezon City Hon. Sec. Jesse M. Robredo, Department of Interior and Local Government Quezon City