‘I AM THE VICTIM’: Former city civil registrar vows to soldier on

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

The embattled former head of the Iloilo City Civil Registrar’s Office (CCRO) said the dismissal of cases he filed against Mayor Jerry Treñas before the Office of the Ombudsman is not the end of the world for him.

Romeo Cesar “Juncae” Manikan said he will exhaust all legal means to get justice for his sacking as CCRO head by Treñas.

Manikan said in a statement posted on Facebook that he still has options in his quest for justice.

“This is not the end. We have various options as legal remedies. My lawyers agreed with my decision to file the necessary legal response like Motion for Recon(sideration) or Appeal or a similar pleading,” he added.

Manikan stressed that he is the victim of injustice who must protect his rights despite the lack of power and resources.

“The Lord knows who is telling the truth. I am just an ordinary employee, someone who doesn’t possess any immense power or influence. I am in fact a victim of injustice and have to protect my rights.”

Despite their legal tiff, Manikan said he still respects the mayor and even looks forward to working with him.

“Mayor Treñas will remain a chief executive who I hold in high regard, being a godfather of my only son and I pray when time permits, will be working with together again in public service,” he added.

CASES

Manikan issued the statement after the Ombudsman junked for lack of sufficiency the two complaints he filed against Treñas.

The mayor’s office received on June 13 the resolutions approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Cornelio Somido based on recommendations of Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas Paul Elmer Clemente.

The first complaint was filed by Manikan in September 2019 against the mayor and CCRO assistant head Cherie Ampig. Somido approved its dismissal on May 8.

Manikan alleged that Treñas and Ampig violated Article 177 (Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and that they acted with Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority.

He referred to the issuance of a Detail Order by the mayor and Ampig, which led to the transfer of a bookbinder from the CCRO to the City General Services Office (CGSO) at the Calajunan dumpsite in Mandurriao district.

The transfer was enforced even if Manikan was still CCRO department head on the date.

Esteral was sacked in September 2020 for insubordination but was tagged as preventively suspended in April 2021 after reporting to work despite his dismissal from the service.

The Ombudsman found no probable cause to charge Treñas and Ampig for violating Art. 177 of the RPC, citing a Memorandum Order designating the latter as officer-in-charge of the CCRO when Esteral was recommended to be transferred.

The Ombudsman also cited that Treñas was only acting on Ampig’s recommendation.

These bases also led the anti-graft body to reject Manikan’s claims of Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Authority, emphasizing that Treñas and Ampig were working well within their official functions.

The second case filed by Manikan involved City Legal Office (CLO) head Edgardo Gil as the mayor’s co-accused relative to Manikan’s preventive suspension in November 2019.

The suspension stemmed from a complaint filed against Manikan by a certain Cristy Joy Sandoval, in relation to his duties as CCRO chief.

Manikan also alleged that the mayor publicly warned him and other then-city officials to resign for allegedly actively campaigning for the mayor’s 2019 election rival, former mayor Jose Espinosa III.

Manikan specifically cited Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Sections 4(A)(a), 4(A)(b), and 4(A)(c) of Rep. Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).

Sec. 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 penalizes the act of “Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.”

Sec. 4(A), subsections (a), (b), and (c), of Rep. Act No. 6713, provides for public officials and employees to observe the standards of commitment to public interest, professionalism, and justness and sincerity.

Administrative complaints against Trenas and Gil included Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave Misconduct, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, Oppression, and Violation of Existing Civil Service Laws and Rules of Serious Nature.

Manikan alleged that he was not afforded due process as he was not able to examine and respond to the complaint against him, as well as the lack of preliminary investigation.

But the Ombudsman said that it found nothing in the complaint nor in its supporting documents any basis to charge Treñas and Gil with the said violations.