Deputy Speaker and Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay on Monday said the Supreme Court ruling against him was not yet final and executory and did not question his fitness to run for reelection.
Pichay made the statement after the SC’s First Division junked the consolidated petitions filed by him that questioned the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman on his perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Pichay’s case stemmed from the purchase by the Local Water Utilities Administration of about 445,377 shares of Express Savings Bank Inc. (ESBI) when he was the government agency’s chairman.
“The recent Supreme Court decision only resolved the complaints filed against me before the Office of the Ombudsman,” Pichay said in a statement.
“It must be emphasized that this Supreme Court decision is not a petition for disqualification of my candidacy as congressman,” he said in response to the SC First Division’s 40-page resolution dated November 11, 2021, released only on January 14, 2022.
“In other words, the subject matter of said decision has no relation whatsoever to my fitness to run and hold an elective public position, because it did not specifically and categorically rule on my qualification or disqualification to run as congressman,” Pichay added.
While he respects the ruling of SC, Pichay said he appealed for reconsideration, stressing the Ombudsman had no authority or disciplinary power over House members, impeachable officials and members of the judiciary.
“This Supreme Court decision is not yet final and executory. I respect the decision of the Supreme Court; however, I am determined to exhaust all possible legal remedies accorded to me by law. Given this, I stand by my position that the Ombudsman has no authority to discipline the Members of Congress,” he said.
Pichay noted that Section 21 of Republic Act 6770 provides that 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.
“Notably, CSC (Civil Service Commission) Resolution 01-0365 further clarified that the penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service pertains to appointive positions and does not apply to elective positions,” Pichay explained.
He added: “The malicious filing of nuisance petitions has been the hobby of my opponents and the digging of my old cases has become part of their political tools. Clearly, my opponents fear the voice of the people in Surigao del Sur come election day.”
In the 40-page resolution, the SC’s First Division also upheld the October 18, 2016 and November 17, 2017 resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, which upheld the finding of probable cause by the Ombudsman to indict Pichay and several others for violation of the Manual of Regulation for Banks and three counts of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.
The high court denied Pichay’s consolidated petitions seeking to nullify his administrative and criminal liabilities over LWUA’s purchase of 445,377 ESBI shares, its deposit of P300 million, and advance payment for subscription in the anticipated increase in capital stock of ESBI in the amount of P400 million.
The SC junked Pichay’s argument that his right to due process was violated when the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal from the service, which was approved by the Court of Appeals in its October 23, 2013 decision and February 24, 2014 resolution.
In his appeal, the lawmaker asserted the complaint did not raise allegations pertaining to the requirement of presidential approval under Administrative Order 59 and the approval of the Monetary Board under the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-MORB, thus, he could not be held administratively guilty for these acts.
The tribunal also said that based on the evidence, Pichay committed “flagrant disregard of the rules” in obtaining ESBI shares.
It pointed out that Pichay, as chairman of LWUA, allowed the purchase of ESBI despite the absence of approval by the MB as required by the banking laws and regulations.
“Ultimately, the absence of the requisite MB approval resulted in losses on the part of the government in the total amount of P780 million. This amount could have been used for other endeavors to help local water utilities,” the SC said.
The SC also did not give weight to Pichay’s claim that the term “perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision” as an accessory to the penalty of dismissal from service means that the disqualification extends only to government positions that involve employment.
Pichay claimed the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion when it imposed disqualification to hold any public office, which is an accessory penalty under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).
The High Tribunal, however, noted that there was nothing from the provisions of Administrative Order 07 that would prevent the application of the RRACCS.