SC affirms former PNP chief’s suspension

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2014 decision of the Office of the Ombudsman that ordered the six-month preventive suspension without pay of former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Alan La Madrid Purisima in connection with the alleged anomalous contract with a courier service in 2011.

In a decision written by Justice Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, the SC’s first division ruled that the Ombudsman acted within her power to issue a preventive suspension order.

The SC said “the Ombudsman found that the evidence of guilt against Purisma was strong enough to place him under preventive suspension… based on supporting documentary evidence, none of which was questioned to be inadmissible.”

Purisima’s preventive suspension ordered by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Dec. 3, 2014 had been upheld by the Court of Appeals in a decision dated July 29, 2015. Purisima elevated the issue before the SC.

In its decision, the SC said the Ombudsman did not violate Purisima’s right to due process nor did she prejudge the case when she issued the preventive suspension order even before the former PNP chief filed his counteraffidavit on the second complaint.

“Ultimately, it should be borne in mind that the issuance of a preventive suspension order does not amount to a prejudgment of the merits of the case. Neither is it a demonstration of a public official’s guilt as such pronouncement can be done only after trial on the merits,” the SC said.

It pointed out that a case questioning the validity of a preventive suspension is not mooted by the supervening lifting of the same, contrary to the earlier ruling of CA that the petitions are moot in view of the lapse of the six-month period of preventive suspension.

A summary of the case issued by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that in 2011, PNP entered into a Memorandum Agreement (MOA) with WER FAST Documentary Agency, Inc. (WER FAST) to provide courier services to deliver firearms licenses to gun owners sans any public bidding.

In 2014, then PNP Chief Purisima was charged with two complaints before the Ombudsman.

The first complaint was filed by a private individual charging him with violation of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Official and Employees), RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), and RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), alleging, among others, that the MOA was not procured through competitive bidding and was executed before WER FAST obtained its SEC certificate of registration, and that Purisima has close personal ties with WER FAST’s incorporator and high ranking officer.

The second complaint was filed by the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB)-Office of the Deputy Ombuds- man for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) against Purisima and several PNP officers involved in the MOA’s execution and WER FAST’s accreditation as a courier service provider. Purisima was allegedly administratively liable for approving the recommendation of his subordinate without verifying or checking the records and capability of WER FAST.