Over two weeks ago, a petition was filed with the Office of the President asking that Governor Roger Mercado of Southern Leyte be immediately suspended from office. We do not know if President Aquino is inclined to speedily respond to that petition.
The charges are pretty serious: grave misconduct and abuse of authority.
The administrative complaint filed with the Office of the President arises from a criminal complaint filed last month with the Provincial Prosecutor for Southern Leyte. The case involves the warrantless arrest and illegal detention of 11 residents of Sogod.
The 11 workers were part of a group engaged in quarrying operations, although at the time the governor had them forcibly removed from the quarry, they were not at work. The governor’s order to arrest and detain the 11 was not covered by any writ or warrant. They were simply herded into a waiting van belonging to the provincial government and brought to the police headquarters in Maasin.
Fortunately for the 11, police officials in Maasin immediately realized that the arrest was illegal. The police officials refused to take the 11 into custody. Otherwise, they might have been jailed with neither warrant nor charge.
The incident is likely related to another event where Governor Mercado overreached his authority.
In December 2013, the Provincial Government of Southern Leyte enacted a Provincial Revenue Code that nearly tripled the extraction fee collected for quarrying gravel and sand in the province. All quarries whose area exceeds 5 hectares, according to this enactment, will henceforth require a Governor’s Permit.
The enactment clearly violates the Mining Law, which assigns to the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the DENR the authority to permit quarries larger than 5 hectares. The matter was brought to court, with the petitioners arguing the Governor does not have the authority to issue permits for quarries and that the sharp increase in fees was confiscatory.
The court agreed with the petitioners and issued an injunction against the governor in June this year. Since then, Gov. Mercado began behaving high-handedly against the quarries, culminating in that illegal arrest last month. The petition for immediate suspension of the Governor is to prevent him from using his office to interfere with the criminal charges filed against him.
Another governor, Exequiel Javier of Antique, is facing charges at the Commission of Elections for suspending the mayor of Valderrama, Mary Joyce Roquero, in the middle of the election period last year. Our election laws, for obvious reasons, clearly prohibit suspension of elected officials during the electoral period.
When the matter was brought to court, Gov. Javier sought to remove the judge, alleging bias in the case. With the case apparently mothballed in the regional courts, Mayor Mary Roquero filed a suit with the Comelec complaining that she was suspended without prior written authority from the poll body. Javier’s supporters were heard bragging that because Gov. Javier was close to President Aquino, nothing will come out of the complaints filed.
Comelec Commissioner Elias Yusoph, however, agreed with the complainants, ruling that Javier’s proclamation as governor should be annulled since he committed a serious electoral offense during the election period. The Comelec, en banc, should pass upon the case.
While the poll body was quick to annul the proclamation of Laguna Gov. ER Ejercito allegedly for electoral overspending, it now seems to be dragging its feet on the more serious case for disqualification against Javier for serious violation of the electoral code.
This can only reinforce the perception that, when it comes to administration allies, especially those who behave like petty tyrants, the wheels of justice do grind exceedingly slow.
Mayor
I was surprised to learn from Dik Pascual’s column last Sunday that the Supreme Court is about to hand down a decision on a petition to disqualify Joseph Estrada from his post as Mayor of Manila.
I had imagined this was a settled issue. The Comelec ruled in Estrada’s favor in several petitions when he ran for President and when he ran for mayor.
The basis for the Comelec’s previous rulings seemed clear. That man was granted executive clemency by the President of the Republic. His civil and political rights were fully restored to him.
To my simple mind, an executive clemency is an absolute pardon. What in the phrase “absolute pardon” is not clear?
Apparently, lawyers think differently from ordinary mortals like us. Those who petitioned the High Court argue that the line “Whereas, Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any elective position or office” is a conditionality on the grant of clemency.
The argument, I thought, runs against the grain of legal construction (or essay writing). The “whereases” in any resolution is simply a listing of facts that pertain, strengthening the dispositive portion. They are not limitations on the clemency decreed — unless, of course, the Supreme Court is bent on reconstructing legal construction.
The wording of the executive clemency does not impose abstinence from seeking elective office as an explicit condition. It merely acknowledges that a promise has been made (and all reasonable men are free to change their minds).
Because I had imagined things this way, I had always thought the disqualification case against Estrada before the Supreme Court was mere nuisance. It need not require the justices to break any sweat grappling with legal complexities. The grant of executive clemency is pretty forthright.
Apparently, however, the justices have been breaking much sweat over this petition, laboring to arrive at a ruling the past so many months. Suddenly, my layman’s reading of the pardon could be ruled wrong.