Thai food binge
Just eating with co workers.
Just eating with co workers.
Pinay nurse’s death in California jail highlights safety issues - Yahoo! Philippines News:
"The recent death of a Filipina nurse detailed to a California jail has raised concerns over the “disturbing trend of violence' faced by medical care professionals in potentially violent workplaces. On Oct. 28, registered nurse Cynthia Palomata, 55, succumbed to the head injuries she sustained after she was attacked by an inmate at the Martinez county jail, where she had been assigned since 2005."
A report by the Asian Journal, a US-based news website for the Filipino community, identified the suspect as Aaron Nygaard, in jail for burglary. According to the report, Nygaard faked a seizure attack to get out of the waiting room, then, without provocation, he hit Palomata on the head with a table lamp. The nurse was brought to John Muir Medical Center, where she underwent surgery for swelling in the brain due to blood clot. On Oct. 28, however, Palomata was taken off life support and declared dead. The suspect will be charged with murder, the report said. Palomata, a native of Nabas town in Aklan, had been working for the Contra Costa Health Services in California for over 20 years. She left behind a husband and a grown son. "The suddenness of the incident left us, her family, in shock. She was unaware that when she left home that day, she would never see her family again. We miss her terribly," Palomata’s brother Cyril Barraca Jr. was quoted as saying in the Asian Journal report. Dr. William Walker, director of Contra Costa Health Services, said in a statement that they will continue to evaluate safety procedures in coordination with the Sheriff’s Office. ‘Disturbing trend of violence’ Following Palomata’s death, the California Nurses’ Association (CNA) raised concerns about the safety of nurses assigned to potentially dangerous facilities. In a statement, the CNA called for policy reforms to curb what it called a “disturbing trend of violence" in facilities where medical care is provided. “Workplace violence is a major public health concern that has grown substantially in the past decade," the CNA said. It cited data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the healthcare industry registered the highest incidence of workplace violence among all industrial sectors, being responsible for 45 percent of the two million incidents of workplace violence incidents that have occurred annually in the US between 1993 and 1999.
An Emergency Nurses Association survey released in 2009 also showed that more than 50 percent of emergency room nurses had experienced violence from patients and more than one-fourth had experienced 20 or more violent incidents in the past three years. Citing research, the CNA also said that factors such as long wait times, a shortage of nurses, drug and alcohol use by patients, and treatment of psychiatric patients all contributed to violence in the ER. “We can no longer tolerate inadequate security measures which threaten not only RNs and other staff, but also put families and other patients at risk," said CNA president emeritus Kay McVay. “Violence takes a significant toll. Prevention is essential to creating a safe and therapeutic environment for patients and a safer workplace for healthcare workers," she said. She also said that preventive measures were needed to reduce the loss of experienced staff members, who leave because of assaults and threats of violence. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration define workplace violence as any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the workplace. Part of the job In a separate interview, Philippine Nurses Association (PNA) president Dr. Teresita Barcelo said the violence that nurses face, even in the Philippines, is “real" — and this is why preventive mechanisms need to be instituted even as early as when prospective nurses are still studying for their college degrees. “Violence is one of our job hazards. We know that. That’s why kami na ang nag-iingat, because these people (patients in potentially violent worksites) cannot be relied upon," Barcelo said. Barcelo said the nursing curriculum includes a course on psychiatric nursing, where students are taught how to develop a “therapeutic relationship" with their patients. Barcelo admitted that certain incidents of violence — such as that experienced by Palomata — cannot be expected and are difficult to prevent. Even so, she added, developing this kind of relationship with patients may significantly reduce the occurrence of violent acts. But even outside these facilities, nurses, particularly in the Philippines and in some countries in the Middle East, become the subject of crimes, according to Barcelo. She cited the case of Florence (not her real name), a volunteer nurse in South Upi town in Maguindanao who was reportedly gang-raped on September 27. (See: Report: Maguindanao gang-raped nurse undergoes surgery) “It is important that part of the orientation in the hospitals and other facilities should be to inform medical professionals of the possible dangers of working there. This should be part of the protocol of hospitals," Barcelo explained. Nursing: popular because lucrative? In the last five years, some 82,000 nurses have indicated their desire to work in the US by taking the National Council Licensure Examination, the licensure exam for nurses in the US. The Department of Health said a big surge of nurses working overseas started in 1994, when some 100,000 nurses left the country. From 2000 to 2009, about 120,000 more were deployed abroad. In light of increased opportunities for overseas work, nursing remains a popular course for college students, with over 600,000 students taking it in 400 nursing schools in 2007, according to the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines. Records from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration meanwhile show 13,000 newly hired Filipino nurses were deployed overseas in 2009, making it a top occupational category for OFWs, second only to household service work.—DM/JV, GMANews.TV
-----
Written by Adrian Tan, author of The Teenage Textbook (1988), was the guest-of-honour at a recent NTU convocation ceremony. This was his speech to the graduating class of 2008.
-----
I must say thank you to the faculty and staff of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information for inviting me to give your convocation address. It’s a wonderful honour and a privilege for me to speak here for ten minutes without fear of contradiction, defamation or retaliation. I say this as a Singaporean and more so as a husband.
My wife is a wonderful person and perfect in every way except one. She is the editor of a magazine. She corrects people for a living. She has honed her expert skills over a quarter of a century, mostly by practising at home during conversations between her and me.
On the other hand, I am a litigator. Essentially, I spend my day telling people how wrong they are. I make my living being disagreeable.
Nevertheless, there is perfect harmony in our matrimonial home. That is because when an editor and a litigator have an argument, the one who triumphs is always the wife.
And so I want to start by giving one piece of advice to the men: when you’ve already won her heart, you don’t need to win every argument.
Marriage is considered one milestone of life. Some of you may already be married. Some of you may never be married. Some of you will be married. Some of you will enjoy the experience so much, you will be married many, many times. Good for you.
The next big milestone in your life is today: your graduation. The end of education. You’re done learning.
You’ve probably been told the big lie that “Learning is a lifelong process” and that therefore you will continue studying and taking masters’ degrees and doctorates and professorships and so on. You know the sort of people who tell you that? Teachers. Don’t you think there is some measure of conflict of interest? They are in the business of learning, after all. Where would they be without you? They need you to be repeat customers.
The good news is that they’re wrong.
The bad news is that you don’t need further education because your entire life is over. It is gone. That may come as a shock to some of you. You’re in your teens or early twenties. People may tell you that you will live to be 70, 80, 90 years old. That is your life expectancy.
I love that term: life expectancy. We all understand the term to mean the average life span of a group of people. But I’m here to talk about a bigger idea, which is what you expect from your life.
You may be very happy to know that Singapore is currently ranked as the country with the third highest life expectancy. We are behind Andorra and Japan, and tied with San Marino. It seems quite clear why people in those countries, and ours, live so long. We share one thing in common: our football teams are all hopeless. There’s very little danger of any of our citizens having their pulses raised by watching us play in the World Cup. Spectators are more likely to be lulled into a gentle and restful nap.
Singaporeans have a life expectancy of 81.8 years. Singapore men live to an average of 79.21 years, while Singapore women live more than five years longer, probably to take into account the additional time they need to spend in the bathroom.
So here you are, in your twenties, thinking that you’ll have another 40 years to go. Four decades in which to live long and prosper.
Bad news. Read the papers. There are people dropping dead when they’re 50, 40, 30 years old. Or quite possibly just after finishing their convocation. They would be very disappointed that they didn’t meet their life expectancy.
I’m here to tell you this. Forget about your life expectancy.
After all, it’s calculated based on an average. And you never, ever want to expect being average.
Revisit those expectations. You might be looking forward to working, falling in love, marrying, raising a family. You are told that, as graduates, you should expect to find a job paying so much, where your hours are so much, where your responsibilities are so much.
That is what is expected of you. And if you live up to it, it will be an awful waste.
If you expect that, you will be limiting yourself. You will be living your life according to boundaries set by average people. I have nothing against average people. But no one should aspire to be them. And you don’t need years of education by the best minds in Singapore to prepare you to be average.
Interesting news about the trend of young men in Japan. Hahahahaha, check it out!
Japan's young men seek a new path: "By Chico Harlan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, October 24, 2010; 10:35 PM
TOKYO - Something is happening to Japan's young men. Compared with the generation that came before, they are less optimistic, less ambitious and less willing to take risks."
They are less likely to own a car, want a car, or drive fast if they get a car. They are less likely to pursue sex on the first date - or the third. They are, in general, less likely to spend money. They are more likely to spend money on cosmetics.
Emma Hitt, PhD
According to the AHA, chest compressions should be started immediately on anyone who is unresponsive and is not breathing normally. Oxygen will be present in the lungs and bloodstream within the first few minutes, so initiating chest compressions first will facilitate distribution of that oxygen into the brain and heart sooner. Previously, starting with "A" (airway) rather than "C" (compressions) caused significant delays of approximately 30 seconds.
Pinoy expat bloggers to launch 2 OFW social service groups | ABS-CBN News | Latest Philippine Headlines, Breaking News, Video, Analysis, Features: "MANILA, Philippines – Two action-oriented groups aimed at delivering social services to overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) will be launched in December.
Pinoy Expats OFW Blog Awards Inc. (PEBA), an alliance of international Filipino bloggers, announced the launching of its New Media Network Group and OFW Alliance Action Group.
“The PEBA New Media Network Group will post news events and stories through video blogs and articles that are relevant to the lives of Filipino migrant workers,” said Program Director Felix Jigs Segre, PEBA’s head of Public Relations and Media Affairs."
Lawmakers scramble for P21-B dole
By Leila B. Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:43:00 10/18/2010
Filed Under: Politics, State Budget & Taxes, Government Aid,Congress
MANILA, Philippines—After failing to block the expansion of the conditional cash-transfer (CCT) program, a number of lawmakers now want its P21-billion budget, described by the House minority leader as a “partisan war chest,” realigned to their favorite projects.
So a small group of members of the House of Representatives tasked with fine-tuning the budget for 2011 before its passage on final reading can expect to be bombarded with proposals to rechannel funding for the cash-transfer program to other projects.
Critics of the CCT budget still plan to submit their suggestions on how the P21 billion (up from P10 billion this year) could be better used, despite the fund remaining intact when the P1.645-trillion budget was passed on second reading in the House early on Saturday.
The small committee of lawmakers is expected to meet during the congressional break, which began over the weekend and would last until early November.
The group would be receiving committee and individual amendments, and would either reject or incorporate these into the final version of the budget that the House would pass.
Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan, one of the militant lawmakers who circulated a manifesto opposing the CCT program for being a costly dole, said she and her party-list colleagues would submit their specific proposals to realign the P21 billion.
“Our proposal would be more specific now because we would be putting the actual amounts on the table,” Ilagan said.
She said she wanted to realign part of the CCT funds to boost the budget of state universities and colleges.
Other suggestions that have cropped up include using the funds to restore the budget of the National Food Authority to the 2010 level to allow it to buy more rice from farmers, to build farm-to-market roads and to provide for the electrification of far-flung barangays.
House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman proposed that the CCT budget be reduced to P6 billion, which he said would be enough for the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to service 1.5 million households, which he considered a more reasonable target.
Lagman said the Aquino administration’s plan to provide cash incentives to 2.3 million families next year was “overly ambitious” anyway and beyond what the DSWD could handle.
Under the CCT program, beneficiaries are supposed to ensure their children’s attendance in school and send mothers to health centers for regular checkups.
Lagman also criticized the administration for pushing for the retention of its P21-billion CCT allocation, which he describes as a “partisan war chest.”
He said the President should have left Congress alone to do its job.
“The repeated intransigent demands of President Aquino of having the CCT appropriation approved intact reveal a motive to preserve a partisan war chest even as he derogates the constitutional power of the Congress to independently appropriate public funds,” Lagman said.
The CCT has proved to be the most contentious point in the two-week budget deliberations, with debates and questions on the project taking up three days.
Ex-President and Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who started the CCT program, was a vocal critic of the project’s expansion, saying there were not enough classrooms and birthing facilities to accommodate the beneficiaries.
Arroyo said that the expanded CCT program was ambitious and untimely, and that it was irresponsible to allocate such a big amount for a project that was not yet fully prepared.
"San Beda reclaims NCAA title, completes 18-game sweep
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 10/15/2010 6:04 PM | Updated as of 10/15/2010 7:31 PM
The country’s bright young minds come together for the Philippines
BY KARLA ANGELICA G. PASTORES EDITORIAL CONSULTANT
MENDOZA LAWYER: BRIBE BID WAS P250K
IIRC blames Ombudsman,
hints at extortion attempt
BY ED LINGAO
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13TH, 2010 · SHARE THIS STORY
First of two parts
When the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) on the August 23 Quirino Grandstand hostage incident finally uses the word “extort,” it almost seems like an afterthought. The word is buried in the second to the last paragraph of the last page of the report it submitted a month ago to President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III.
Part 1: IIRC blames Ombudsman, hints at extortion attempt
Part 2: Broken police, broken legal system broke hostage-taker?
Relevant documents:
Mendoza letter to PAGIBIG, page 1
Mendoza letter to PAGIBIG, page 2
Also see:
From Day 1, P-Noy wanted to save Lim, Puno, Verzosa
“This is our society,” the report concludes. “It drives otherwise ordinary and simple men to turn into murdering monsters at a snap. Because they feel oppressed and need justice but are asked for money. They ask for redemption but are faced with extortion. Officials without shame, policemen without competence, politicians without care, reporters without conscience, a nation without luck. Mendoza was only the instrument in the murder of eight innocent human beings.”
Yet the paragraph, coming at the tailend of a lengthy review of the actions, and inactions, of government officials and private entities, effectively defines the report and redefines hostage-taker Rolando Mendoza in the eyes of the public.
Here is Mendoza, a dismissed policeman who murdered eight foreign tourists and cast the country under a cloud of shame and infamy, painted as a victim of injustice and incompetence. Yet here, too, is a bemedalled policeman who lost his job on charges of extortion, portrayed by the committee as a victim of extortion himself. Clearly, while the committee has no sympathy for Mendoza’s actions, it has much sympathy for his plight.
The five-person committee lays the blame for the bungled hostage rescue on officials of the Department of Interior and Local Governments (DILG) and the Philippine National Police (PNP). But the committee squarely lays the blame for Mendoza’s radical actions on yet another institution: the Office of the Ombudsman.
Throughout the report, the committee scores a seemingly endless series of missteps and mistakes that showed “manifest injustice and oppression” by the Office of the Ombudsman against Mendoza. These incidents, the IIRC says, were the trigger for Mendoza’s actions.
“The proximate cause of his (Mendoza’s) actuation being the slow wheels of justice and in this case, at the Office of the Ombudsman,” the IIRC report states.
These failures were further colored by two things: what the committee called the “undue interest” of the Ombudsman in Mendoza’s case, and reports that an official from the Office of the Ombudsman had demanded P150,000 from Mendoza in exchange for the dismissal of the charges against the former policeman.
A P250,000-bid?
Atty. Ernesto Cabrera, Rolando Mendoza's lawyer. Video grab by Ed Lingao.
But the last lawyer to represent Mendoza in his bid to be reinstated has since told PCIJ that the amount was actually P250,000.
“Captain Mendoza disclosed to me that the Ombudsman had asked, not 150, but 250 thousand pesos for the dismissal of the case against him,” says Ernesto Cabrera, who was hired by Mendoza in November 2009 to pursue his reinstatement in the service.
Cabrera also says that Mendoza had already agreed to pay the amount. The problem, he says, was that Mendoza could not raise the entire amount by himself.
“On the third or fourth week (after I took over his case), he went back to me,” recounts Cabrera. “According to him, he has big retirement benefits and wanted to give in to the demand. He was ready to give but they (co-respondents) have to share (in the amount),” But the co-respondents did not want to give their share, so that intention of his bogged down.”
Aside from Mendoza, four other police officers had been dismissed from the service by Gonzalez for the extortion complaint filed by Christian Kalaw in 2008.
PAG-IBIG loan
With more than P5 million in retirement benefits hanging in the balance, Mendoza sought another avenue, Cabrera says. According to the lawyer, Mendoza asked him for help to refund a loan he took out six years before from PAGIBIG, or the Home Development Mutual Fund.
“There was a time he requested for a refund of his PAGIBIG,” says Cabrera. “He had applied for a house and lot and discontinued this.”
Cabrera wrote the PAGIBIG main office in Makati, and was able to facilitate the partial refund of Mendoza’s loan. In return for his help, Cabrera said Mendoza gave him P3,000.
“The money was refunded to him, so he had the money,” Cabrera says. But the lawyer says it was not clear if Mendoza was ever able raise the entire amount to pay off his alleged tormentors, as the money from PAG-IBIG amounted to just “more than a hundred thousand pesos.” It is also not clear to Cabrera if Mendoza made any payment to anyone from the Office of the Ombudsman.
Cabrera adds that while Mendoza gave him the last name of the person who allegedly demanded the amount, Mendoza was never specific. “He told me it was a Mister Gonzalez (who asked for the money),’ he says. “I don’t know if there is a Gonzalez there, who was the one who asked for that money.”
A check with the PAG-IBIG main office in Makati shows that Mendoza had taken out a housing loan in 2004, for two properties at the South Fairway Classic Homes in Block 39, lot 77-79, Barangay Landaya, San Pedro Laguna for the amount of P500,000.
But Mendoza had canceled the loan in May 2009, just months after his dismissal order was handed down by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, and on the same month that the dismissal order was affirmed by the acting Ombudsman, Orlando Casimiro. The process is called a “voluntary surrender” of a housing loan, where the surrenderee can reclaim 50 percent of the amount he had already amortized to the PAGIBIG Fund.
The subdivision where Mendoza bought a lot through PAGIBIG. Screenshot via Google Earth.
Check for P196,000
A check with the Cash Department of PAG-IBIG also shows that the Fund had released a check voucher for P196,913.51 to Rolando del Rosario Mendoza on Feb. 15, 2010. PAG-IBIG records show as well that the release of the check was facilitated after a written request was made by Mendoza’s legal counsel, Atty. Ernesto Cabrera.
About six months later, Cabrera would hear a lesser amount supposedly mentioned by Mendoza, while the dismissed policeman was holding tourists hostage, as being demanded from him by an official from the Office of the Ombudsman.
During the IIRC’s two-week marathon hearings, Police Major Romeo Salvador, one of the negotiators, also testified that he overheard Mendoza cursing Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) Emilio Gonzalez III over the telephone for demanding P150,000 before he could rule on Mendoza’s case.
Gonzalez was the official who ordered the dismissal of Mendoza on charges of extortion in February 2009.
In its report, the committee mentions the incident on page 75: “As expected, Mendoza – who previously berated Deputy Gonzalez for allegedly demanding Php 150,000 in exchange for favourably resolving the motion for reconsideration – rejected and branded as trash the Ombudsman letter promising review, triggering the collapse of the negotiations.”
Oblique reference
Yet the next time the committee made reference to the incident was in the last page of the report, where it spoke of people who ask for “redemption” but are instead faced with “extortion.”
It was a rather curiously oblique way of accusing the Office of the Ombudsman of a major offense. But some of those familiar to the discussions within the committee say that the committee was “inclined to give credence” to Salvador’s testimony. An insider adds that the committee members saw “no reason” for Mendoza to lie while he berated Gonzalez on the telephone.
“There is an inclination within the committee to believe the incident,” says the insider who was present at the IIRC discussions. “Salvador’s testimony has weight. The committee also saw no reason for Mendoza to lie at the time he made these statements.”
Non-appearance
The problem was that Gonzalez had refused to appear before the committee to give his side. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had declared that her office would not take part in the investigation, since it was an independent and co-equal institution.
As a result, the committee, while inclined to believe that Mendoza spoke what he believed to be the truth, could go no further than make oblique references that Mendoza was a victim of extortion.
“This is the evaluation of the committee, but the committee wants the issue to be subject to further investigation,” says someone privy to the committee goings-on.
In the final report, the IIRC recommended the referral of its findings to the Office of the President “for further determination of possible administrative offenses.” For Gutierrez herself, the IIRC recommended a probe to see if her offenses serve as grounds for impeachment.
The PCIJ tried to get Gonzalez to comment on the allegations of extortion, but he refused to comment and instead referred PCIJ to Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus, the designated spokesman of the Office of the Ombudsman.
“Very vague sa amin ang accusations, but we are not closing the door into the matter,” De Jesus says. “If anyone will come out with accusations, with evidence, naming who was really extorting, (then we may look into it.)”
“We have many Gonzalezes here,” he also says. “Which Gonzalez is he (Cabrera) referring to?”
Internal Affairs
And yet De Jesus says that Ombudsman Gutierrez has already referred the issue of extortion to the Internal Affairs Board of the Office of the Ombudsman. The board will determine if there is basis to file any charge against Emilio Gonzalez III.
The Board’s head is Overall Ombudsman Casimiro, who as acting Ombudsman had affirmed Mendoza’s dismissal from the service.
De Jesus says Cabrera could file a complaint with the Board if he is serious with his allegations. “If there is a lawyer saying that, if he can submit to our internal affairs board any evidence he has (he should do so)” De Jesus says. “Especially if he can identify the person (who made the offer.)”
But he says, “I think Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez was asked (about the issue), and he explained, ‘How can I do it, I don’t know Mendoza personally, I have not met him personally, and I have not done it.”
“We have no basis except for that accusation, and then there is already a denial (on the part of Gonzalez,)” he says.
Scathing report
The IIRC, however, apparently sees the matter differently. Insists an IIRC insider: “The way the committee sees it, (Mendoza) was serious about what he was saying.”
It may be for this reason thus that the committee issued its most scathing comments against the Office of the Ombudsman. While it could not recommend any charges of extortion against officials at the Ombudsman’s office, the committee charged the office of “inexcusable negligence” in delaying Mendoza’s case, and questioned the “undue interest on the case” of Mendoza.
“Ombudsman Gutierrez and Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez committed serious and inexcusable negligence and gross violation of their own rules of procedure in failing to promptly resolve without justification, and despite repeated written please, Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration to the judgment of dismissal, which prolonged inaction precipitated the desperate resort to hostage-taking,” the committee report stated.
Anatomy of a charge
The dismissal of Mendoza and four other policemen belonging to the Manila Police Mobile Unit stemmed from a charge of extortion filed by student-chef Christian Kalaw in 2008. Kalaw alleged that he was manhandled and threatened by Mendoza’s men after they accosted him near La Salle University in Manila. Kalaw said that he was brought to Mendoza’s office at the Manila Police Mobile headquarters, where Mendoza allegedly demanded P 200,000 in exchange for Kalaw’s freedom. In his affidavit-complaint, Kalaw said they ended up settling for P20,000.
But the complaint against the policemen failed to prosper before the City Prosecutor’s office, largely because Kalaw never appeared to pursue his complaint. The same case was elevated to the PNP’s Internal Affairs Service, where it was also dismissed for failure of Kalaw to appear.
Then in July 2008, Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez directed the PNP to turn the case over to his office, an act that drew this observation from the IIRC: “It appears that the Ombudsman exercised jurisdiction over the case based on a letter issued motu propio by Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III, directing the PNP-NCR – without citing any reason – to endorse the case against Mendoza and the arresting policemen to his office for administrative adjudication, thereby showing undue interest on the case.”
Seven months later, Gonzalez ruled for the dismissal of Mendoza and the four other policemen. The ruling was approved by Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro on May, 2009.
The committee pointed out that the ruling was based “on the sole and uncorroborated complaint-affidavit of Christian Kalaw, which was not previously sustained by the City Prosecutor’s Office and the PNP Internal Affairs Service.” In other words, the one and only piece of evidence considered by Gonzalez’s office was the first affidavit executed by Kalaw when he filed his complaint before the City Prosecutor’s Office.
Five-day period
Still, Mendoza had recourse; under the rules of the Ombudsman, he could file a motion for reconsideration that had to be resolved within five days of filing. Mendoza filed his motion in November 2009. The motion for reconsideration remained unresolved for nine months, until Mendoza finally took his hostages.
“By allowing Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration to languish for nine long months without any justification, Ombudsman Gutierrez and Deputy Ombudsman Gonzalez committed complete and wanton violation of the Ombudsman prescribed rule to resolve motions for reconsideration in administrative disciplinary cases within five days from submission,” the IIRC report notes. “The inaction is gross, there being no opposition to the motion for reconsideration.”
Adding yet another complex layer to the mix, the Ombudsman ordered Mendoza’s dismissal to be enforced immediately. In a 2008 ruling (Samaniego vs Ombudsman), the Supreme Court ruled that judgments of the Ombudsman in disciplinary cases become executory only after denial of an appeal “This implies,” says the IIRC report, “that an Ombudsman judgment of dismissal cannot be executed If subject of a pending appeal.”
“If an Ombudsman judgment of dismissal cannot be executed when subject to a pending appeal before the higher courts, what more for a judgment of dismissal that is still subject of pending reconsideration before the Ombudsman,” the committee says.
Soft heart
For his part, Assistant Ombudsman De Jesus defends the slow resolution of Mendoza’s case by saying the Ombudsman receives thousands of complaints a month. In addition, De Jesus says the five-day period to resolve motions for reconsideration is not mandatory.
“Since the office has a soft heart for dismissed employees, so the practice is to have it studied very well, studiously and laboriously,’ he says. “The length of time in this case occurred because of the laborious and thoughtful study put into the case all over again.”
“There is no violation of the law (with regard to the five-day period to resolve motions for reconsideration,),” asserts De Jesus. “Because we’re talking about livelihood, the life of the respondents, and their families, that’s why this was being studied very carefully. We have to reckon the fact that this is not the only case in our office. We have only a few lawyers.”
Own MR
De Jesus says the Ombudsman is also aware of the Samaniego doctrine, which states that penalties greater than one-month suspension are not executory so long as there is a pending appeal. But he says that the Ombudsman is contesting the Supreme Court ruling with its own motion for reconsideration. Until that motion is resolved, he argues, the Ombudsman believes all its rulings are immediately executory.
The IIRC, however, thinks otherwise.
“Had the Ombudsman officials performed their duty under the law and acted decisively, the entire crisis may have ended differently,” its report says.
This may be partly why, in the last page of its 82-page report, the committee paints Mendoza as a villain, but one who was among many other villains, a criminal who was a victim as well, “a man with a perceived injustice and oppression done against him, so common in Philippine society, cornered and forced to a murderous and insane mission.”
– PCIJ, October 2010