Who will suffer for the ineptitude and tolerance of public officials and government offices was the question that the people of Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon are asking the Department of Interior and Local Government Region 5 who failed in serving the dismissal order of the Ombudsman to Alejandro Gamos, the town mayor for grave misconduct together with the local accountant and the treasurer. Their answers are valid proof that when public officers failed to implement a valid order, they are obstructing justice, not serving the interest of a local government unit or worst in connivance with a “padrino politico”.
When the legal officer of DILG 5, together with the Sorsogon OIC and peace officers went to Sta, Magdalena to serve the Ombudsman Order dismissing Gamos, they arrive pass three in the afternoon and took no concrete action to locate, coordinate with other local officials and authorities for a peaceful service of an order of a constitutional body. Fearing for bloodshed was their excuse, but the people of the town has seen an orchestra of moves, hearing a flurry of calls to lawyer Blandino Maceda, the regional director for the delay in serving the dismissal order was how it was played. Was it true Director Maceda that a letter signed by the Mayor was received by your office informing you that he filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals which your subordinates subscribed not to serve the Order? At that time, did your people receive the appellate court order for injunction as petitioned by Gamos? Im sure they don’t have the copy of that injunction for it was not issued by the appeals court. What you may have was the petition filed September 23 and was resolved four days after by the 13th Division of the Court of Appeals ‘without giving due course to the petition’ which you are required to answer in ten days. Why use the petition as your valid excuse. Your people said, “you heard there as a motion for reconsideration’ but your people did not hear the shout for restitution of their taxes which was deliberately use for personal gains.’ Your office is full of what ifs?
The lame excuse of Maceda’s men are miserable compliance of the provisions of RA 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989. Section 39, Duty to Render Assistance to Ombudsman, “Any officer or employee of any department, bureau or office, subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations and local governments, when required by the Ombudsman, his Deputy or the Special Prosecutor shall render assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman” can Director Maceda and his subordinates stand above this requirement? Where is the fair game for the people of Sta. Magdalena. The issue now becomes political for the calculated acts of Maceda’s DILG gave an impression that the mayor was a victim of a politics opposite for he amassed unliquidated cash advances which after numerous demand to liquidate by state auditors he deliberately ignored it.
The leadership of Director Maceda is beyond compare, he has his own rules circumventing even an order of a constitutional body, a new era for ineptitude and crooked tolerance affecting public good is what Sta. Magdalena experience.