The Office of the Ombudsman on Saturday explained its decision to lift the six-month preventive suspension it imposed against Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) chairperson Monalisa Dimalanta.
In an order dated October 22, 2024, the Ombudsman on its own volition lifted the August 20, 2024 order of preventive suspension issued against Dimalanta who was denounced for her agency’s failure to recalculate Manila Electric Company (Meralco)’s distribution rate.
Dimalanta filed a motion for reconsideration against the preventive suspension order, the Ombudsman stated.
In her appeal, Dimalanta questioned why she was the only one charged when the ERC being the regulator is a collegial body and that the chairman cannot make decisions for the agency alone.
In explaining its move to lift the suspension order, the Ombudsman said that on October 1, 2024 it denied Dimalanta’s motion for reconsideration “considering that there was sufficient basis for the issuance of the preventive suspension.”
“For clarity, a distinction must be made between the Resolution denying the MR (motion for reconsideration) and the Order lifting the preventive suspension,” the Ombudsman stated, notint that “preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.”
“The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.”
The Ombudsman explained that pursuant to law and jurisprudence, it is explicitly authorized to issue a preventive suspension order under Section 24 of RA 6770 when two conditions are met.
“These are: (a) the evidence of guilt is strong based on the Ombudsman’s judgment; and (b) by any of the three (3) circumstances – (1) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (2) the charges would warrant removal from office; or (3) the respondent’s continued stay in the office may prejudice the case filed against him.”
The Ombudsman said the preventive suspension order is effective during the period of investigation but not to exceed six months.
“Respondent Dimalanta has already filed her counter-affidavit and the documents needed in the investigation are already in the possession of the investigators,” it said. “What is simply left to be done is the submission of Position Papers and a clarificatory hearing,” it added.
The preventive suspension was lifted prior to the expiration of the six-month period provided by law “as in the other cases investigated by the Ombudsman.”
“When the reason for the preventive suspension has already ceased, justice and fair play demands that the preventive suspension should not be for the full six-month period allowed by law but should immediately be lifted,” it said.
