Rules up on conduct of admin probe vs Iloilo town execs
Official guidelines on the conduct of administrative investigation against elective town officials are now up for approval before the 9th Iloilo Sanggunian Panlalawigan (SP).
With a draft Ordinance submitted in yesterday's regular session, ground rules and procedures were laid down for SP body's nod. The SP, pursuant to the Local Government Code, has jurisdiction over said administrative disciplinary cases.
And as provided further, the rules and interpretation of the Capitol Ordinance "shall not be strictly bound by the technical rules of evidence."
Ten grounds for administrative disciplinary action were identified including dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross negligence or dereliction of duty.
Any elective official may also be disciplined, suspended or removed from office with the commission of any offense involving moral turpitude.
The administrative case, the Ordinance states, may be initiated by any private person or any government employee by filing a verified or sworn written complaint. Yet it may also be done "motu propio" by any local government official or agency duly authorized by law to ensure that local government units act within prescribed powers and functions.
"No complaint against elective official shall be given due course unless the same is writing and verified under oath," Section 2 of Rule 3 went.
A notice within seven days of the complaint's filing will be given to the respondent in order for the answer to be sought.
"No motion shall be allowed in lieu of the answer," the Ordinance continued. "Upon receipt of the answer, the Sanggunian shall, in its regular session, determine the existence of a probable cause and within ten days commence the investigation through the creation of an ad hoc committee…if there exist no prima facie evidence against respondent, the Sanggunian may motu propio dismiss the case."
Preventive suspension awaits the respondent official should the evidence of guilt is strong, "and given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence, the Sanggunian may recommend that respondent be placed under preventive suspension which shall not extend beyond 60 days."