SolGen faces multiple raps at Ombudsman

FILE: A private citizen filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Solicitor General Jose Calida, accusing him of violating Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and the Revised Penal Code. (PNA Photo)

A private citizen filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Solicitor General Jose Calida, accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and the Revised Penal Code.

The complaint was filed on Thursday, May 10, by Jocelyn Marie Acosta, who is a supporter of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

In the complaint, Acosta said that based on the General Information Sheet filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2016, Calida owns 60 percent of capital stocks of Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency Inc. (VISAI), while his wife and three children own 10 percent each.

Acosta said that VISAI has contracts with several government agencies, particularly National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), and the National Parks Development Corporation (NPDC).

Calida’s ownership, the complainant said, shows a conflict of interest as stated in Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

“As solicitor general, respondent represents the agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including the NEDA, NAPC, PAGCOR and NPDC. Respondent cannot be the lawyer of the government, at the same time its client,” the complaint read.

Acosta added that by basically owning VISAI, Calida “places the government at a disadvantageous position.”

The complainant also said that Calida is guilty of malversation, which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code, for having an illicit relationship with an intern at the Office of the Ombudsman (OSG) and diverting P1.8 million worth of public funds to her.

Acosta, however, offered no evidence on the alleged affair except for “reports” she cited.

“I acknowledge we do not have hard evidence when it comes to the relationship. But the eyewitness reports are strong, very credible ang witnesses. We beseech the Ombudsman to investigate this relationship,” she said.

The complainant further stressed that Calida’s filing of quo warranto petition, seeking to remove Sereno from her post, is a violation of the anti-graft law.

Saying that the petition is unconstitutional, Acosta claimed that the solicitor general is guilty of “persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer – the Supreme Court in this case – to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority.”

In addition to the charges, Acosta also noted that Calida violated his mandate as the legal defender of the government when he exhibited “total bias” in favor of the Marcos family through his support to the move to dissolve the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).

The PCGG is in-charged with recovering the ill-gotten wealth amassed by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and his cronies.

“Respondent being unabashedly pro-Marcos, his declared intention to dissolve the PCGG and usurp its functions, plus the fact that the PCGG does in fact currently refuses to perform its mandate of running after Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth, all point to the same conclusion: respondent is not true to his oath as Solicitor General. He is not acting as a lawyer for the government. He lawyers for the Marcoses,” Acosta said.

Acosta, however, failed to detail the supposed bias of Calida for the Marcos family aside from citing the claims of a former official of the PCGG.

Calida, on the other hand, has yet to issue a statement regarding this matter.