The Office of the President, through senior Deputy Executive Secretary Waldo Flores, upheld the May 2004 resolution of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) recommending the dismissal of Region 12 directors Sumail Sekak of the agriculture department and his wife, Kunesa of the social welfare department.
The couple were held administratively liable for graft and for violating the code of conduct of public officials after they were found to have concealed a number of real estate properties in Cotabato City and Maguindanao.
"After a careful review of the records of the case, this office (upholds) the PAGC’s findings and recommendations as contained in its resolution in order," read the Office of the President resolution.
The dismissal of the Sekaks brings to six the total number of public officials fired for failing the lifestyle check launched by the President more than a year ago on public officials.
Former PAGC chairman Dario Rama and commissioner Teresita Baltazar held the Sekaks accountable for declaring in their joint statement of assets and liabilities (SAL) in 2002 that they only owned two real estate properties when records from the Registry of Deeds showed they had five.
"Indubitably, the Sekaks should be held liable as charged since they did not fully disclose all their assets when they prepared their joint 2002 SAL," the decision read, which debunked the couple’s defense they did declare the lots, only these were described as "apartment and housing."
The PAGC ruled that an apartment, which "denotes improvement, cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as referring to land." The anti-graft officials said the Sekaks "tried to coax" them into believing their argument.
The couple denied the allegations made by complainant Robert Ramirez of Cotabato City that they have amassed ill-gotten wealth and argued the "aggregate cost of the parcels of land" they bought were just P256,000 while the construction funds came from "loans."
As to the "housing" entry they made in the declared assets, Ramirez said there is "disparity in the acquisition cost and mortgage amount." Hence, these two parcels of land are different from the property denominated as housing.