Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa Jr. said Friday last week that Malacañang had initiated administrative proceedings against Special Prosecutor Wendell Sulit of the Office of the Ombudsman. It has 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 showcause 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 pro-ceedings was based on the recommendations of the Justice Committee of the House of Rep-resentatives which looked into plea bargain agreement with 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 to ask what are the Commission initiated 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. /MP
No comments:
Post a Comment