Complainant follows up Ombudsman action vs Solicitor General Calida
A PRIVATE citizen followed up a complaint she filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Solicitor General Jose Calida over his alleged failure to divest his business interests in his family corporation.
“With all due respect, I would like to respectfully follow up the Honorable Office’s action on the letter-complaint dated May 10, 2018 that I filed against Solicitor General Jose C. Calida on even date,” said Jocelyn Acosta-Nisperos in her letter.
Nisperos alleged in her complaint that Calida violated Republic Act (RA) 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) when he supposedly “failed to completely divest his business interests in his family corporation” upon assuming his post.
Nisperos, in a letter filed on Friday to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, said the 2016 General Information Sheet of Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency, Inc. (VISAI) supposedly showed that he owned 60 percent of its capital stock.
“VISAI then acts as the security agency of at least six (6) government agencies, namely the Department of Justice (to which the Office of the Solicitor General is attached), the House of Representatives, the National Economic Development Authority, the National Anti-Poverty Commission, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation and the National Parks Development Corporation,” Nisperos said.
She added that government contracts worth P261.39 million have supposedly been awarded to VISAI.
“The foregoing shows a clear conflict of interest,” Nisperos alleged.
In her complaint, Nisperos also alleged that Calida unconstitutionally instituted quo warranto proceedings against a Supreme Court magistrate Maria Lourdes Sereno.
“By filing the baseless and illegal Quo Warranto petition with the Supreme Court, respondent is inducing the Supreme Court to sustain an illegal act and a violation of the Constitution. Respondent is therefore guilty of Section 3(a) of RA 3019…,” Nisperos said.
RA 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. This law’s Section 3(a) prohibits a public officer from persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority.
Nisperos also accused Calida of malversation, alleging that he diverted P1.8 million in public funds to a person with whom he allegedly had “an illicit relationship.”
She further accused him of violating Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code as she alleged that he “has exhibited total bias in favor of the Marcoses…”
The post Complainant follows up Ombudsman action vs Solicitor General Calida appeared first on The Manila Times Online.