Gwen’s COC (2)

Third District Rep. and gubernatorial candidate Gwen Garcia is unfazed by the two petitions to deny due course of her certificate of candidacy (COC) filed before the Commission on Elections (Comelec). She just laughed it off, saying she is very confident that these petitions will just be eventually dismissed as she has a valid and legal arguments to counter it.

Veteran lawyer Edgar Gica, a known Garcia critic, was the first to file the petition on the grounds of Gwen’s “misrepresentation” on her COC when she answered “No” in item 22. The question was: “Have you ever been found liable for an offense which carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office which has become final and executory?” Gwen checked “No” as her answer.

Gwen has been dismissed by the Ombudsman for back-filling a portion of the Balili property in Naga, which was submerged by water. However, the dismissal order was never implemented by the House of Representative leadership. An appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals.

We already expounded the arguments of Gica in our last Saturday’s column. A similar petition was also filed by the lawyers of Vice Gov. Agnes Magpale, Gwen’s opponent for governor in next year’s elections.

Gwen said Gica and Magpale’s lawyers just misread the Ombudsman law.

In Section 21 of Republic Act 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, this statement: “Officials subject to disciplinary authority; Exceptions—The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over members of Congress, and the judiciary.”

I may agree with Gwen’s contention. There have been several cases to this nature

She said the order was not yet final as it was appealed before the CA. If she failed to get a reversal from the CA, she can still go up to the Supreme Court. Maybe the decision is executory, she said, but only for other government officials and not for members of Congress as explicitly expressed in the Ombudsman’s law.

Due to the supremacy of the Constitution over laws or statutes, the limitation on the disciplinary powers of the Ombudsman under Section 21 cannot diminish the disciplinary powers conferred in the Constitution. In the same vein, the Ombudsman law cannot expand the constitutional disciplinary power of the anti-graft office to make it “executory” instead of being merely recommendatory.

Thus, the Ombudsman can investigate a sitting member of Congress and recommend his or her removal to the Speaker or the Senate President. However, neither the Speaker nor the Senate President exercises disciplinary authority over his colleagues. The power is vested by the chamber rules in the ethics committee.

I may agree with Gwen’s contention. There have been several cases to this nature. The case of Cebu City South District Rep. Rodrigo “Bebot” Abellanosa who was also dismissed by the Ombudsman for a grave misconduct over a conflict of interest case when he was still with the City Council. It was not implemented by the House leadership until he got a reversal from the CA. An incumbent senator was also dismissed by the Ombudsman over a graft case, but he is still there.

But Gica said this is not about whether or not the order was final and executory. The issue here is Gwen’s “misrepresentation” on her COC. She lied under oath that is why it is up to the Comelec to evaluate her COC and if found liable she should be disqualified.

Taas-taas pa ni nga proseso. Mabotohan pa ni si Gwen sa mga botante ug posible pang maoy makadaug. Abangan (This is still a long process. Voters can still choose Gwen and it’s possible she might just win as well. Let’s wait).

This is a continuation of my column last Saturday.