THE Office of the Ombudsman on Tuesday ordered a six-month preventive suspension against 25 high-ranking officers of the Philippine Coast Guard for their involvement in the anomalous utilization of funds of P67.5 million.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales ordered the suspension of Vice Admiral Rodolfo Isorena; Rear Admiral William Melad; Rear Admiral Cecil Chen; Commodores Enrico Efren Evangelista Jr. and Aaron Reconquista;
Commanders John Esplana; William Arquero; Jude Thaddeus Besinga; Roben de Guzman; Angel Lobaton IV; Ferdinand Panganiban; Joselito Quintas; Ivan Roldan; Rommel Supangan; George Ursabia Jr.; Ferdinand Velasco;
Wilfred Burgos and Allen Dalangin; Captains Joeven Fabul; Angelito Gil; Ramon Lopez and Christopher Villacorte; Lt. JG Mark Franklin Lim II; Lt. Mark Larsen Mariano, and accounting head Rogelio Caguioa.
She directed Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade to implement the preventive suspension order.
“The respondents’ respective positions allow them to wield influence on possible witnesses and to access public records, [and] their continued stay in office may not only prejudice the cases against them but also allow them to commit further acts of malfeasance,” said Morales in her order.
She invoked Section 24 of the Ombudsman Act that a preventive suspension may be issued pending an investigation if the evidence of guilt is strong, and the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; the charges would warrant removal from the service, or the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
The respondents are facing charges of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service for the irregularities in cash advances of P67,533,289.73.
The amount was used to purchase office supplies and information technology equipment without compliance with the procurement regulations.
According to the Ombudsman, the respondents presented doubtful liquidation documents, indicating “fraud and misrepresentation.”
The anti-graft court also took into consideration an April 15, 2015 audit observation memorandum issued by the Commission on Audit.