Thai rice fiasco haunts Customs execs
‘Monitor admin charge vs cashier,’ Ombudsman orders
Two dismissal orders matched with forfeiture of all government benefits and a six-month suspension without pay. Yet for the Office of the Ombudsman, the Philippine Government’s anti-graft arm, it takes more to penalize erring executives.
This time coming from the Bureau of Customs who once led the Port of Iloilo operations, the Ombudsman wants the sacked and suspended officials to hear more. While at it, a corresponding Order was also out to keep an eye on yet another longtime Iloilo Customs employee.
“Let a complaint be docketed by this Office (referring to the Ombudsman) to monitor the outcome of the administrative charge against CONSUELO GO pending before the Bureau of Customs. Let the Bureau of Customs be notified accordingly,” the Order went as contained in the 35-paged Decision approved by top brass of the anti-graft body.
Go is the Customs cashier involved in the now infamous Thai rice fiasco that practically dragged bureau higher-ups in the fray. The Ombudsman in conducting the probe also heard and validated statements made by no less than agents from the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF).
The PAOCTF men were called in as back-up force given the gravity of the reported organized criminal act then perpetuated. Further complicating the situation was yet another “intelligence report” that hidden in the rice shipment were “several bags” of Shabu otherwise called the “poor man’s cocaine.”
The entire scenario became so complicated and elaborate with an all-star cast of Customs officials, burly Customs guards, top lawyers and the PAOCTF agents with the K-9 team all the way from Manila.
K-9 dogs sniffed their way in and out of the warehouse in Barangay Bulata, Cauayan, Negros Occidental. The “intelligence report” was a dud, not a single gram of Shabu was found.
Fast forward to the Ombudsman probe, it was to be the affidavits of two Customs guards that apparently nailed the erring officials.
Given more credence, a senior Ombudsman investigator noted how the earlier narration of events appeared more believable.
“...likely a spontaneous narration of fact compared to the latter Affidavits submitted,” excerpts of the Decision as furnished to The News Today (TNT) went.
As such, six major findings were reached and established starting off with the conclusion that “With due haste,” dismissed Customs Collector Gerardo Gonzales Jr. auctioned off the seized cargo illegally.
Haste because as the Ombudsman noted, there was personal knowledge on an earlier offer to settle by the claimant of the questioned goods.
And “haste” that certainly made waste in terms of government revenues of over P10.5 million.
The Ombudsman in handing out the penalties and exonerating Sedy Pabiona, Customs Operations Officer III left a lengthy message.
Along with Gonzales, dismissed as well Customs Guard Ernesto Chan while suspended without pay was Customs Guard Jerry Soquiño.
“Time and again we have stressed adherence to the principle that public office is a public trust. All government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives. This constitutional mandate should always be in the minds of all public servants to guide them in their actions during their entire tenure in the government service,” the Ombudsman Decision went.
As for the harsh sanctions, the Ombudsman had this to say – “It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties, amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office. Dishonesty has been defined as an absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive or defraud. It is also defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one’s office or connected with the performance of his duties. Obviously, the acts displayed by Collector Gonzales and Chan show dishonest disposition.”
To note, Gonzales in defending his actions explained to the Ombudsman the reason why he sat on the seizure case and refused to sign an earlier decision by Customs higher-ups.
Primarily “against his conscience,” Gonzales said. And one that “would violate his legal duty to safeguard the interests of the government against smuggling syndicates and would make him part of the attempt to cover-up a consummated act of smuggling.”
Unfortunately for the beleaguered official, the Ombudsman after considering all other evidences presented, did not heed his explanation.