ES Ochoa sets in
motion administrative proceedings against Ombudsman’s special
prosecutors
Press Release
March 11, 2011
MALACAÑANG –
Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa Jr. said on Friday that
Malacañang had initiated administrative proceedings against Special
Prosecutor Wendell Sulit of the Office of the Ombudsman, and had asked
her to explain why she should not be sanctioned for entering into a
questionable plea bargain deal with retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia.
Ochoa issued the
show-cause order directing Sulit to submit to the Office of the
Executive Secretary an explanation, within five days from the time she
received the order, why no administrative disciplinary proceedings may
be commenced against her.
The Executive
Secretary said the initiation of administrative proceedings was based
on the recommendations of the Justice Committee of the House of
Representatives, which looked into plea bargain agreementwith the
former military comptroller.
Ochoa likewise said
that the Office of the President had referred to the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) the House Committee on Justice Resolution No. 3,
which also recommended the filing of appropriate charges against
Deputy Special Prosecutors Roberto Kallos and Jesus Micael; and
Assistant Special Prosecutors Jose Balmeo Jr. and Joseph Capistrano.
“Under the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a complaint
against a civil service official may be initiated by the disciplining
authority,” Ochoa said.
Under Section 8 of
Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, “a Deputy or the
Special Prosecutor may be removed from office by the President for any
of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after
due process.”
The special
prosecutor, just like the Ombudsman, can be removed from office on
grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
In this case, the
congressional reports are treated as complaints and the bases of the
initiation of administrative proceedings against Sulit, Ochoa
explained.
Meanwhile, Ochoa wrote
CSC Chairman Francisco T. Duque III and asked that the Commission
initiate administrative proceedings against Kallos, Micael, Balmeo,
and Capistrano in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order
292 or the Administrative Code.
The Office of the
Ombudsman and CSC exercise concurrent jurisdiction insofar as
administrative cases against Sulit’s deputies and assistants are
concerned, as they are not presidential appointees.
The Administrative
Code states that the Civil Service “embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters” and that the CSC can “hear and decide administrative cases
instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal.”
After conducting an
inquiry into the plea bargain deal, the House Committee on Justice
forwarded last February Committee Resolution No. 3 to the Palace,
requesting the President to take action on the panel’s recommendation
to dismiss Sulit and file appropriate charges against Kallos, Micael,
Balmeo, and Capistrano.