CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas upheld an earlier dismissal of the criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the administrator of the Mactan Export Processing Zone and several other respondents who were accused of illegal demolition.
The anti-graft office denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the complainant Reynaldo Linao for lack of merit.
The Ombudsman sustained its March 9, 2007 resolution dismissing the case for violation of Section 3(e) of the Republic Act 3019 against MEPZ administrator Sansaluna Pinahagayao; Atty. Rufino San Juan; Rolando Patalinghug, general services manager; Nilo de la Serna, chief of police and several unidentified MEPZ police and casual employees.
Linao accused the respondents of illegally demolishing his eatery inside the economic zone. However, the anti-graft body ruled that the demolition was proper because the operation of the eatery inside the economic zone did not have the authority from the Philippine Economic Zone Authority.
Linao moved to reconsider the dismissal of his complaint arguing that the demolition did not comply with the 60-day notice provided for under Section 14 of the Republic Act 7916 or the Special Economic Zone Law.
Linao said that the respondents were stopped from removing his structure as he was allowed to operate it for years and has been paying rentals and permit.
However, the Ombudsman reiterated that while there is no issue that the restaurant’s stay inside MEPZ has been tolerated and allowed and even given business permit and paid incidental fees, the same do not necessarily make its occupancy legal.
“The fact remains that their occupancy over the lot was merely tolerated, the use of the space being merely tolerated, it is understood that the unlawful tenant has to vacate therefrom upon demand by the owner,” the order reads.
It added that the demolition of the restaurant was not without sanction by the PEZA higher authority and that respondents were merely acting in obedience to the order of their office superior and in line with the performance of their duties.
The order further stated that the demolition was made after due process and the lapse of the 60 days period after the complainant received the notice. (THE FREEMAN)