CEBU, Philippines - Did Governor Gwendolyn Garcia commit a violation of law for making it appear that she signed the memorandum of agreement with the representatives of the Balili estate for the purchase of the controversial property when on the date that she supposedly signed and swore in the document before a notary public she was out of the country?
This question was raised after Garcia admitted that she was in Guam together with some of the board members for a sisterhood agreement on April 21, 2008.
This was the date she supposedly signed the MOA with Balili estate executor Romeo Balili and Amparo Balili, the widow of the late Engineer Luis Balili, for the purchase of the 25-hectare property in Tinaan, Naga.
Some of the lawyers are of the opinion that Garcia could be held liable for “making untruthful statements” in violation of the Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code otherwise known as falsification of public documents.
Other lawyers however believe that the violation is committed more by the notary public than the governor.
Lawyer Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, one of the two environmental activists who opened the Balili controversy, said that she believes that Garcia did not commit any violation for supposedly signing the MOA on the date she was actually out of the country.
Ramos explained that the legality of the document was not questioned and Garcia herself did not contest her signature.
But, Villa who notarized the MOA is at risk of facing an administrative case before the Supreme Court for violation of the notarial law.
According to Ramos, the notarial officer should have made sure that the signatory of the document sought to be notarized is present.
Lawyer Fritz Quiñanola also shared Ramos’ opinion saying that the governor enjoys the presumption of regularity.
Quiñanola also explained that it is usually the notary public that put the date of the document.
He added that the lawyer who notarized the MOA is in danger of facing an investigation from the Supreme Court. Quiñanola said there were already similar cases that the high tribunal suspended the lawyer.
Other lawyers who requested anonymity however said that Garcia signed the document under oath, which means that all her statements and declarations therein, including the date, should be true.
One of these lawyers used to handle a similar case wherein an employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was penalized by the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas.
The BIR employee was dismissed from service because of dishonesty and falsification of public document.
Returning the favor?
The Cebu City Council yesterday decided to ask the House of Representatives to conduct a congressional inquiry into the Balili lot purchase controversy.
North district Councilor Edgardo Labella convinced his fellow legislators during their session yesterday on why there should be a congressional inquiry to be conducted into the controversy, which he described as “talk of the town.”
Labella, former director of the Ombudsman-Visayas before he joined politics, explained that the law provides that even if the public officials responsible for the questionable purchase did not receive profits out of it, but they are still liable for violating the provisions of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
The graft investigators of the Visayas Ombudsman are already investigating the controversial purchase of the Balili lots.
Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña supports the move of the council.
“I will go along with it. I don’t mind being the rubberstamp of the City Council, but let me caution them that (3rd district Congressman) Pablo John Garcia will file a bill to amend the Constitution and make it constitutional to buy land under the sea,” the mayor said. — /NLQ (THE FREEMAN)