THE Office of the Ombudsman issued a statement clarifying the lifting of the preventive suspension order against the Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Monalisa Dimalanta.

On Aug. 20, the Ombudsman issued a suspension order against Dimalanta stemming from a complaint filed against her by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms.

On Oct. 1, a motion for reconsideration concerning Dimalanta's suspension was denied by the Ombudsman.

In a statement issued on Saturday, the Ombudsman said that Dimalanta has filed her counter-affidavit and all required documents were now in the possession of the investigators; hence, what is left to be done is the submission of position papers and a clarificatory hearing on her case.

It said that pursuant to law and jurisprudence, the Ombudsman is authorized to issue a preventive suspension order under two conditions set under Republic Act 6770.

"These are: (a) the evidence of guilt is strong based on the Ombudsman's judgment; and (b) by any Of the three (3) circumstances — (1) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (2) the charges would warrant removal from office; or (3) the respondent's continued stay in the office may prejudice the case filed against him," the statement read.

It added that a distinction must be made between a resolution denying the motion and an order lifting the preventive suspension.

Quoting Quimbo v. Gervacio, the preventive suspension, it said, is only a "preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation,"

"The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution Of the case against him," the Ombudsman said.

Concerning other cases filed before the Ombudsman, preventive suspensions were lifted prior to the expiration of the six-month period provided by law, it said.

"When the reason for the preventive suspension has already ceased, justice and fair play demands that the preventive suspension should not be for the full six-month period allowed by law but should immediately be lifted," The Ombudsman added.

Read The Rest at :