THE Court of Appeals has cleared Nueva Ecija Gov. Aurelio M. Umali of administrative liability over his alleged mishandling of his P15-million pork barrel during his stint as a member of the House of Representatives in 2005.
In its October 4 decision, the CA held that Umali was still covered by the 1959 condonation doctrine since the abandonment of the doctrine by the Supreme Court in its 2015 decision was to be applied prospectively.
Under the condonation doctrine, an elected public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a previous term if he is re-elected to office by the same electorate.
Umali was found administratively liable by the Office of the Ombudsman for diverting substantial funds from the PDAF and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program funds to Masaganing Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation. Inc. (Mamfi) and the Samahan ng mga Manininda ng Prutas sa Gabi, Inc. to implement his livelihood projects.
The two firms reported that the funds were used to procure agricultural implements but investigation revealed that no real purchases happened, as all the liquid fertilizers were supposedly sourced from Nutrigrowth Philippines, a company owned by pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
The Ombudsman ordered Umali’s dismissal from service and perpetual disqualification from holding public office in 2016, which it affirmed a year after.
Umali, who won the 2019 gubernatorial elections in Nueva Ecija, elevated the OMB’s ruling before the CA when he was prevented from assuming his post as governor.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) had earlier issued a regional advisory which mandates that local elective officials who were dismissed from the service should serve the imposed penalty even after the said officials were proclaimed to have won in the last May 2019 elections.
However, the CA issued last month a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Ombudsman and the DILG from preventing Umali’s assumption to his post.
In resolving Umali’s petition, the CA held: “The assailed Decision of the Ombudsman dated 14 November 2016 and Order dated 29 September 2017, although supported by substantial evidence, may not be implemented and are accordingly set aside. The administrative misconduct committed by petitioner Aurelio M. Umali is deemed condoned.”
However, the CA explained that, “that criminal prosecutions concerning the same set of facts surrounding an administrative case are not barred or prejudiced by any disposition in the administrative case.”
In affirming the condonation of Umali’s administrative liability, the CA pointed out that the the acts complained of were committed in 2005.
“The alleged act of condonation, that is, the petitioner’s (Umali’s) election as provincial Governor, happened in 2007. In fact, the petitioner was re-elected in 2010 and 2013.
All of these material dates preceded Binay (the case which abandoned prospectively the condonation doctrine in 2015). There can be no doubt therefore that the circumstances of the petitioner’s case transpired prior to Binay,” the CA said.
“The acts complained of and the date of filing of the complaint against the petitioner were prior to the promulgation of Binay in 2015. The alleged act of condonation, that is, his election as Governor in 2007 and his re-election in 2010 and 2013, also preceded Binay,” it added.
The CA noted that during the periods material to the instant case, the Aguinaldo doctrine (condonation doctrine) “would still be good law.”
“While the May 2019 election cannot be considered as the act of condonation, it evidences, nonetheless, the proclivity of the body politic of the 3rd District of Nueva Ecija to put their trust in the petitioner. The petitioner was elected not once but four times from the time when he committed the acts complained of in 2005,” the CA said.
“The Court is thus precluded from imposing the penalty for the administrative liability of the petitioner. This covers not just the principal penalty of removal from public service but includes the accessory penalties as well, such as the perpetual disqualification to hold public office,” it ruled.