"Were you bribed? How much?," a priest, one of those who picketed the Ombudsman’s office, asked Miro pointblank.
Miro, however, denied the accusations and defended his decision to reverse two earlier decisions by his agency’s panel of investigators throwing out the formal charges filed by the property’s former owner against local officials of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
Miro also approved the filing of formal charges against three DAR officials for violation of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, last Oct. 12.
The NGO leaders, who called a press conference to denounce Miro, cited a "highly placed source" at the Ombudsman-Visayas who reportedly told them that Miro and another Ombudsman director, Edgardo Canton, were allegedly offered bribes by the land’s former owner, the ADA Agricultural and Development Corp., to rule in their favor.
Raps vs DAR execs
Miro approved the filing of a criminal case for violation of RA 3019 against provincial agrarian reform officer Virgilio Alcomendras, legal assistance division chief Linda Susan Baring and Task Force Visayas head Maria Lourdes Mariano last Oct. 29.
Lawyer Rex Fernandez, counsel for the accused, questioned the filing of the case against the three DAR officials, saying that was already dismissed twice by the Ombudsman-Visayas’ panel of investigators for lack of jurisdiction.
The controversy revolves around a 93-hectare piece of land in Lamintak, Medellin formerly owned by ADA ADC.
On June 30 last year, the land was distributed to at least 27 farmers identified by DAR as qualified beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
However, the ADA ADC management questioned the distribution to the 27 farmers, arguing that only seven of them were holders of certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs).
The former landowner then filed a case for forcible entry against the 20 farmers who were allegedly not CLOA holders. The case is now pending in the Regional Trial Court.
DAR officials further argued that ADA ADC has no legal personality to file a case against the three DAR officials who, they said, were just doing their job.
The Ombudsman-Visayas panel, headed by graft investigator Jane Aguilar with Ricardo Rebollido and Helen Acas as members, recommended the dismissal of the case against Alcomendras, Mariano and Baring last May 2 for lack of jurisdiction, which Miro subsequently approved.
Prior to the panel’s decision, graft investigator Macaundas Hadjirasul also recommended the dismissal of the case on the same ground.
On June 14, ADA ADC filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration which the panel also denied last Sept. 27. Miro approved the recommendation.
Canton, however, did not agree with the panel’s findings and made his own recommendation to file a criminal case against the three DAR officials in court.
On Oct. 12, Miro reversed his earlier decisions and consented to the filing of the case against the three DAR officials. However, prior to his decision to reverse his earlier rulings, the NGOs claimed that a former city councilor was frequently seen at the Ombudsman-Visayas’ offices. — Freeman News Service