Ad-hoc committee formed to decide mayor's plea for dismissal of admin raps
An ad-hoc committee composed of two lawyers in the 9th Iloilo Sanggunian Panlalawigan (SP) will decide on the fate of Santa Barbara Mayor Isabelo Maquino.
This, after the SP body convening as a quasi-judicial body moved to finalize the evidences gathered thus far in the matter of administrative case for grave abuse of authority, dereliction of duty and dishonesty pending here.
Tackled in yesterday's regular session, a strongly-worded Motion To Dismiss was presented before the body with the mayor through his counsel pushing for the immediate dismissal of all charges.
Third District Board Member Arthur Defensor Jr. and Fourth District Board Member George Demaisip will comprise the Ad Hoc Committee.
In an interview, Defensor said yet another round of study and evaluation will be made to establish and ascertain if probable cause exists. Pressed for details, Defensor opted to keep mum on the matter saying he would not want to pre-empt the ultimate findings.
He remains unsure though of the time needed for said continued study and evaluation yet assured that it would not take "that much time."
To note, the Motion To Dismiss filed by the mayor's counsel lashed at the SP body for what was termed as "undue delays." Defensor begged to disagree on such assertion.
In taking up the cudgels for the mayor-client, the lady counsel stated five grounds stressing foremost that the prescribed hearing period has since lapsed.
And this, the mayor's counsel Ma. Salvacion Portia Beup stressed, continued delay is an SP violation in itself of practically the same charges.
Docketed as Administrative Case No. 2007-002, plaintiff is former broadcast journalist and Santa Barbara Councilor Larry Deatras.
The discussion as presented highlighted the history of the case stating, "Five months have lapsed since the filing of the Answer by the defendant, but in so far as the defendant is concerned, no action involving the case has been taken by the Honorable Sanggunian Panlalawigan of the Province of Iloilo."
"The sanggunian should not pay mere lip service to the reglementary periods for investigating and deciding on the case. The proceedings in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan were unduly prolonged, to the prejudice of the defendant," excerpts of the Motion as filed went. "Any action other than dismissal of the case shall be tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of the Province of Iloilo, which prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and shall be a perpetration of injustice, unfairness, and ineptitude to the latter."
Second ground for the dismissal, the Motion continued, was that the supposed undue delay is violative of the constitutional right of the defendant-mayor.
"Defendant being a public official has to attend to the pressing concerns of local governance. A period of five months of unjustified delay in the determination of an administrative case is too long for a municipal mayor who is given by law a term of only three years to serve his constituents. This delay is clearly vexatious, capricious, oppressive and prejudicial on his part. Simply put, justice delayed is justice denied," the Motion continued.