Press Release
February 8, 2007

Senate censures Gonzalez, Puno for brutal police
assault on Iloilo Provincial Capitol

The Senate has censured Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez in connection with the infamous Jan. 17 siege of the Iloilo Provincial Capitol by heavily-armed police commandos supposedly to implement an Ombudsman order dismissing Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas Sr. and two provincial board members on graft charges.

During its session late Wednesday night, the Senate adopted the report prepared by the Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs and the Committee on Local Government stating that Puno and Department of the Interior and Local Governments (DILG) Undersecretary Wencelito Andanar should be censured for "prematurely enforcing" the order of the Ombudsman dismissing Tupas and Provincial Board Members Domingo Oso Jr., and Cecilia Capadosa.

The Senate Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs is chaired by Liberal Party President Sen. Franklin Drilon while the Committee on Local Government is chaired by Sen. Alfredo Lim.

Puno and Andanar were aware of existing laws and Supreme Court jurisprudence that allow the three Iloilo officials to file an appeal, the report said. "They cannot pretend in not knowing the same. It would be tantamount to gross ignorance of the law for them not to know these landmark decisions. They know pretty well that there is still a period to appeal the said decisions and yet with haste they immediately implemented the same. Therefore, they deserve this censure," it added.

The report also censured Gonzalez "for his unwarranted interference" in the investigation of the graft case against Tupas, the political rival of the justice secretary in Iloilo Province.

"As can be shown from the testimonies in the Senate hearing, the DOJ Secretary was shown to have an unwarranted interest in the case of Governor Tupas because he was even the one who announced on air from January 14 to 15, that the dismissal order against Governor Tupas was forthcoming," the report said.

"What is even more revolting is the fact that although it is not his mandate to investigate anti-graft complaints, he assumed the investigation of these cases. And even more repulsive is his vigorous denial of his involvement."

Drilon said the Senate investigation also determined that the Philippine National Police team that assaulted the Iloilo Provincial Capitol supposedly to implement the dismissal order against Tupas violated its own "rules of engagement" and utilized excessive force against unarmed civilians.

"It is evident that the PNP clearly did not adhere to its own Operational Procedures and Rules of Engagement as there was excessive use of force and violent enforcement of the dismissal orders for Governor Tupas as graphically captured on video and TV," the Senate report said. "No doubt, there was an unwarranted use of the Regional Mobile Group for Crowd Control whose members committed highly offensive acts against civilians during their assault of the provincial capitol."

The report further said: "Some of the members of the Regional Mobile Group have acted beyond what they should have done in a crowd control situation in this January 17, 2007 incident at the provincial capitol. They went on a rampage breaking doors, smashing glass panels and even pointing their guns to Board Member Niel Tupas Jr. and his companions, who were on the floor, all unarmed. These acts were downright unwarranted and uncalled for. These deserve condemnation from the Joint Committees."

The Senate report also recommended that Chief Superintendent Wilfredo Dulay Sr., police regional director for Western Visayas who order the assault, be reassigned and a reshuffle of police officers in the region be effected immediately, Drilon revealed.

"Even the local officials led by the governors of Region VI were so incensed by the illegal dismissal orders and the violent assault of the Iloilo Provincial Capitol that all were in unison in asking for the reshuffle/reassignment of those involved to other regions. We therefore urge the PNP to effect the said reshuffling soonest so that the trust and confidence of the people to the PNP will be restored." the report said. It also recommended that the PNP should 're-orient" its personnel on the proper execution of crowd control and dispersals operations and procedures.

Drilon said the Senate report brecommended that the Commission on Human Rights should continue with its investigation to "identify and prosecute those responsible for the violent assault of the Iloilo Provincial Capitol."

The Senate findings upheld the earlier assertion of Drilon that only the courts, and not the Office of the Ombudsman, can order the dismissal of any elective government executive from office.

Drilon had pointed out that the provisions of Section 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991 clearly states that "an elective official may be removed from office only by order of the proper court."

This requirement on the dismissal from office and other sanctions against elective government officials, Drilon added, was upheld in a number of Supreme Court cases such as the "Pablico versus Villapando case" wherein the tribunal stated "the power to remove erring elective local officials from service is lodged exclusively with the court."

In a statement today, Drilon said the committees on public order and local government also asked that the Ombudsman should review its "rules on administrative cases especially those concerning elective officials and also be updated on relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court that decisions, orders of Ombudsman are not immediately executory pending appeal."

"It is clear in our findings that the Office of the Ombudsman is vested only with investigatory and recommendatory function," the report said. "As envisioned in the Constitution, the Ombudsman cannot directly discipline an erring public officer or employee. Its authority is to direct the proper disciplining authority to take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officer or employee and to recommend his or her dismissal or suspension or prosecution."

The Senate report also made the following findings:

1. "Based on the foregoing findings of the Joint Committees, after having closely examined the powers and functions of the Ombudsman as provided under the 1987 Constitution, it is hereby clearly established that the Office of the Ombudsman has no power to remove public officials from office. And that the Office of the Ombudsman is vested only with an advisory and recommendatory function."

2. "Moreover, Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act does not provide the Ombudsman the power to perpetually disqualify a public official to hold public office. Hence, the Ombudsman cannot impose the penalty of perpetual disqualification, more so that this is punitive in nature and therefore can be imposed only in criminal cases such as violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices."

3. "Under Section 60 of Republic Act No. 7160 otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1991", an elective official may be removed from office only by order of the proper court. As such, the penalty of dismissal from service upon an erring elective local official may be decreed only by a court of law, and even the Office of the President has no power to remove elected officials from office."

4. "It is clear that there was no valid and proper service of the decisions of the Ombudsman to Governor Tupas and Board Members Oso and Capadosa. Likewise, the decisions are not immediately executory considering that under the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure in Administrative Cases, a respondent upon receipt of the decision of the Ombudsman is given ten days to file a motion for reconsideration or fifteen days within which to appeal the questioned decision."

News Latest News Feed