Home OPINION DOJ REVIEW ON OMBUDSMAN DISMISSAL OF AURORA OFFICIALS A MUST

DOJ REVIEW ON OMBUDSMAN DISMISSAL OF AURORA OFFICIALS A MUST

WITH a formal request from the ‘victims’ – former Aurora Gov. Gerardo Noveras and son Christian, also a former governor – the Department of Justice  can step into the ‘questionable’ dismissal order of the Office of the Ombudsman imposed on Feb. 21, 2024.

Ater all, the Noverases, who believed on irregularity related to the anti-graft office’s order, could avail themselves of the remedies under Executive Order No. 292 in light of the alleged presence of a mole or spy inside the Ombudsman.

EO 292 empowers the DOJ to “serve as the government’s prosecution arm and administer the government’s criminal system by investigating crimes, prosecuting offenders and overseeing the correctional system.”

“With a ‘mole operating within the Ombudsman, there is strong possibility of data breach, and the anti-graft inquiries might have been compromised,” the Noverases said.

A mole inside the Ombudsman definitely falls under the scope of DOJ’s role as mandated by EO 292, and warrants an outright investigation, they added.

The assailed dismissal order got the approval of Ombudsman Samuel Martires on Feb. 21, 2024 but was only officially relayed to the Noverases on April 5 through their legal counsel.

Between Feb. 21 and April 5, the mole or insider had ample time to leak the dismissal order prematurely, they claimed.

“But more than the leakage, the mole could have been silently working within the system, exerting undue influence on the graft probers until we blew the whistle,” the Noverases said.

The Noverases found another reason for the DOJ to review the whole case, saying that the complainant in the conspiracy case ‘lacked proof to pin us down’ together with co-respondent Michael Tecuico.

“It was all implied. The complainant didn’t have any proof,” they stressed.

Siding with complainant Narciso Amansec, the Ombudsman ruled that “while there may be insufficient direct evidence of their agreement, their (Noverases) conspiracy is implied…”

But in the same ruling, the Ombudsman dropped the charges against the other respondents ‘for lack of substantial evidence,’ something which the Noverases called “selective justice” that is tantamount to injustice.