Ombudsman affirms nepotism case vs Isabela mayor

BAYOMBONG, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman has affirmed the nepotism case filed against the mayor of Santiago City in Isabela for appointing her husband as a director of a water district five years ago.

The Sandiganbayan set the arraignment of Santiago City Mayor Amelita Navarro, charged with nepotism for appointing her husband, Jose Navarro, as Santiago City Water District (Sanwad) director, before its Third Division on Sept. 23.

The Ombudsman’s deputy special prosecutor for Luzon Jesus Micael yesterday confirmed the filing of the case against Navarro as an offshoot of the Ombudsman’s denial of her motion for reconsideration and supplementary motion.

In its 13-page resolution last July 12, the Ombudsman said preliminary evidence showed that Navarro committed an act of nepotism when she had her husband sit on the Sanwad board of directors representing the medical sector.

A barangay councilwoman, Lydia Makiling of the city’s Dubinan East village, filed the nepotism case against Navarro in 2005, claiming that the mayor’s appointment of her husband was tantamount to nepotism as well as against the interests of the people of Santiago City.

The Ombudsman said Navarro, as a high-ranking public official, abused her authority in designating her husband to the city’s water district.

The STAR tried to get Navarro’s side but she did not respond to calls and text messages.

The Ombudsman resolution quoted Navarro though as saying that she was innocent of the charges since she made the designation in good faith, with clean intensions and with the belief that she did not violate any laws.

However, the Ombudsman, through assistant special prosecutor III Leni Bajo-Padaca, said Navarro’s appointment of her husband constituted nepotism, which is defined as delegating or assigning a relative to a position in the government or in government-owned and controlled corporations like the Sanwad.

In its resolution, the Ombudsman said Navarro’s lawyers had been given five years to file a motion for reconsideration and supplemental motions in connection with the case, all of which were denied for lack of merit.