The Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman clearing former Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos of the charge of usurpation of authority.
In a decision written by Justice Marvic Leonen, the Court’s Third Division dismissed the petition of Negros Oriental Gov. Roel R. Degamo seeking to reverse the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the charge against Relampagos for lack of probable cause.
Instead, the high court sustained the April 19, 2013 Resolution and Jan. 8, 2014 Order of the Ombudsman that held that, “without proof that [the Ombudsman] acted with grave abuse of discretion, it shall not interfere with public respondent’s determination of probable cause.”
The case arose from the P480.775 million worth of Special Allotment and Release Order released by the Budget department in lieu of the P961.550 million originally requested by the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council for Negros Oriental in 2012.
The money was to pay for infrastructure projects in Negros Oriental, which was then reeling from the devastation of Typhoon “Sendong” and a magnitude 6.9 earthquake.
At the instructions of then Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Relampagos eventually withdrew the SARO for non-compliance with the guidelines on large-scale fund releases for infrastructure projects.
In his complaint before the Ombudsman, Degamo alleged that when Relampagos wrote the letter-advice withdrawing the SARO, the latter “falsely posed himself to have been authorized by then President [Benigno] Aquino” and “usurped the official functions of the Executive Secretary, who had the sole authority to write and speak for and on behalf of the President.”
In dismissing Degamo’s petition, the high court held that Relampagos did not commit the crime of usurpation of authority, saying the official “did not maliciously represent himself as an agent, officer or representative of the government.”
The high court ruled that Relampagos was in fact a public official himself, being the Budget department’s Undersecretary for Operations, whom the Ombudsman had found to have signed the letter in his own name and under the words, “By Authority of the Secretary.”
The tribunal said Relampagos can neither be held liable for usurpation of official function. It said under the doctrine of qualified political agency, “department secretaries may act for and on behalf of the President on matters where the President is required to exercise authority in their respective departments.”
