SC upholds Mario Relampagos acquittal in usurpation case

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the dismissal of criminal charges against former Department of Budget and Management (DBM) undersecretary Mario Relampagos involving P480.775 million for the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC).

In a 13-page decision promulgated last Feb. 4, the Third Division of the high court affirmed the 2013 ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman that dismissed the complaint for usurpation of authority or official functions against Relampagos for lack of probable cause.

The SC dismissed for lack of merit the petition filed by Negros Oriental Gov. Roel Degamo seeking reversal of the Ombudsman ruling.

The Court agreed with the findings of the ombudsman that Relampagos did not usurp the authority of the Palace when he withdrew the Special Allotment and Release Order (SARO) released by the DBM to NDRRMC for non-compliance with guidelines on large-scale fund releases for infrastructure projects.

The funds were supposed to be given to Negros Oriental in 2012 to pay for infrastructure projects in the province, which was then reeling from devastation wrought by Typhoon Sendong and a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. 

The SC stressed that Relampagos “did not maliciously represent himself as an agent, officer or representative of the government.” 

It held that Relampagos was in fact a public official himself, being DBM undersecretary for operations, whom the ombudsman had found to have signed the letter in his own name and under the words, “By Authority of the Secretary.” 

The Court further ruled that Relampagos could neither be held liable for usurpation because “department secretaries may act for and on behalf of the President on matters where the President is required to exercise authority in their respective departments.”  

It explained that Relampagos, under authority of then DBM secretary Florencio Abad, may exercise the power to withdraw the SARO through the letter-advice sent to Degamo.

Finally, the Court added that Relampagos acted in good faith in withdrawing the SARO.