Customs brokers groups seek reversal of complaint vs DOF, BIR, BOC chiefs

Various customs brokers groups have asked the Office of the Ombudsman to overturn its ruling dismissing criminal and administrative complaint against Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, Internal Revenue commissioner Kim Henares and then Customs Commissioner John Sevilla.

 

The brokers' motion stems from the alleged illegal imposition of additional requirements for accreditation of brokers.

 

In an 18-page joint motion for reconsideration submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman on Wednesday, the brokers groups said the Ombudsman’s joint resolution dated June 11, 2015 was “fatally defective” as it dismissed their complaint in a “sweeping passion and summary manner” without looking on its legal basis and merits.

 

The groups who filed the joint motion for reconsideration were Professional Customs Brokers Association of the Philippines (PCBAPI), Association of Aduana Brokers of the Philippines, Aduana Business Club, VisMin Customs Brokers Association Inc., and the Customs Brokers Council of the Philippines.

 

The groups have earlier filed against Purisima, Henares and Sevilla a joint complaint of violations of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 9280 or the Customs Brokers Act and RA 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act.

 

The groups said the respondents should also be held administratively liable for grave misconduct.

 

The complaint stemmed from the respondents’ issuance of executive orders that impose upon brokers additional certifications and accreditations other than the ones specifically provided under RA 9280 or the Customs Brokers Act of 2004 before they can practice their profession.

 

The executive issuances being questioned are Department Order No. 18-2014 and Department Order No. 33-2014issued by Purisima; Memorandum Order No. 10-2014 issued by Henares and Customs Memorandum Order No. 11-2014 issued by Sevilla.

 

The complainants pointed out that under Section 19 of RA 9280, the only requirements for a broker to exercise his profession were a certificate of registration and a professional identification card issued by the Customs Brokers’ Board.

 

“Respondents prevent, bar, preclude, block, stop, impede and hinder the complainants from exercising their profession and from transacting with the Bureau of Customs notwithstanding the complainants’ faithful compliance with the requirements of R.A. 9280,” the complaints maintained in their motion for reconsideration filed by their legal counsel Catalino Generillo Jr.

 

“There is no specific law authorizing the respondents to impose new and additional requirements,” the groups added.

 

The complainants also pointed out that under RA 9280, it is the Customs Brokers’ Board who has the sole mandate and authority to regulate, control and supervise the practice of the profession of a customs broker.

 

The groups said three of the 16 complainants, namely, Rey Soliman, Ariel Abagat and Bernardo Feliciano were suspended by the BOC for non-compliance with the additional requirements cited under the questioned executive issuances. 

 

“In sum, the uncontroverted facts above have established prima facie evidence, if not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents committed acts that constitute violations of RAs No. 9280, 3019 and 9485 and grave misconduct,” the brokers groups’ motion for reconsideration read.

 

In a joint resolution dated June 11, 2015, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint of the brokers groups, citing a pending case before the Manila Regional Trial Court over the same executive orders and involving the same officials.

 

The Ombudsman said that “unless a competent court declares an executive issuance to be invalid, it remains enforceable and effective” and thus, the anti-graft body cannot pass a judgment on its validity.

 

The complainants described the Ombudsman’s ground for dismissing the case as “fatally defective”, pointing out that the Supreme Court, in a previous decision, had already clarified that an investigating body such as the Ombudsman has the power to conduct a preliminary investigation on a complaint despite a pending case in a court.

 

“This Office merely stated a sweeping, motherhood, self-serving and baseless opinion that forum shopping exists,” the complainants said.

 

The complainants also pointed out that under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the investigating body is required to conduct a preliminary investigation on a complaint to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground or probable cause to indict the respondents or hold them liable for administrative offenses.

 

“This Office made no determination on whether or not there was sufficient ground to hold the respondents for trial… Neither does the Joint Resolution states the findings of facts and the law supporting the action of this Honorable Office,” the complainants said.  — ELR, GMA News