Motion to suspend Josie dela Cruz, other PhilPost execs in no-bidding P10-m computer scandal filed before Ombudsman
A motion to suspend for six months all the officials of the Philippine Postal Corporation (PhilPost) involved in the P10-million computer procurement scandal marked by lack of bidding was filed last April 27 before the Office of the Ombudsman.
In ALAM’s motion for preventive suspension, complainants Causing and Paglicawan, by themselves, argued that a preventive suspension for six months is necessary becauseit is "necessary for these officials to be prevented from tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses in order not to frustrate the ends of justice and the Filipino who want no less than faithful, loyal and honest service from the PhilPost."
Further, the stated that "there is clear and present danger that the respondents will manipulate documents and compel witnesses to perjure."
“This is because they know that the offenses charge against them are so grave and shameful. They also know there is no other way to escape the extreme punishment of dismissal from the service except for obliterating all footprints of their revolting misdeeds,” Causing and Paglicawan continued.
Causing added that the manipulation of documents is so easy for the respondents to do because these are in their possession.
“It is also easy for them to threaten witnesses and for these threats to bear fruits for them because of the spectre of fear towering over the heads of employees of PhilPost entrenched by them by dangling a 'rationalization' program that seeks to dismiss thousand employees.”
“In addition, these respondents have the propensity to lie as proven by the continuous display of Executive Order No. 366 despite their full knowledge that this directive came from a ‘Dead Law’ that ceased to be effective as of 31 December 2005.”
“That ‘Dead Law’ is the budget law for 2004 that was automatically appropriated as the budget law for 2005 because of the failure of the Congress to pass an appropriation act for that later year.”
Causing and Paglicawan also said that there is also an equitable reason to suspend respondents. "When in doubt, the interest of private individual must weight to the interest of the State and its people."
“In this case, the interest of the State and its people that is placed in great peril is the interest of substantial justice for the thievery of the people’s money,” Causing and Paglicawan argued.