Ex-solon seeks Pichay disqualification from 2019 polls

A former lawmaker has filed a disqualification case against Deputy Speaker Prospero Pichay's  reelection bid as Surigao Del Sur's 1st District representative in the 2019 elections.

In her petition filed on November 12, former Surigao Del Sur Representative Mary Elizabeth Ty said the Office of the Ombudsman has perpetually disqualified Pichay from holding public office as a penalty for being found guilty of grave misconduct over the anomalous acquisition of a thrift bank by the Local Waters Utilities Administration (LWUA), which he chaired, in 2008.

The Ombudsman found Pichay and two other executives liable for grave misconduct for their “unlawful disbursement" of P780-million LWUA funds to invest in the Laguna-based thrift bank Express Savings Bank Inc.

The penalties leveled against Pichay and the two other LWUA executives included their removal from their posts, their perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and the forfeiture of all their benefits.

Ty argued that after Pichay's motions for reconsideration had been denied by the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals, the Comelec needed to enforce the anti-graft office's accessory penalty and disqualify Pichay from holding public office.

The Comelec, in January 2016, issued a document in response to the endorsement from the Ombudsman saying that Pichay had been included in their list of those disqualified from holding public office.

Ty pointed out that the Ombudsman's decision was immediately executory in accordance with the Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 2006, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Supreme Court ruling in Ombudsman vs Joel Samaniego.

“Given all the foregoing premises, it is now incontrovertible that Pichay is utterly ineligible to hold public office, given the immediately executory disqualification to hold public office expressed in the Ombudsman decision," Ty said.

At the same time, Ty also asked the Comelec to prevent Pichay from being substituted in his candidacy.

Pichay, however, was unfazed by Ty's petition, saying that it was only a "nuisance" case filed by against him by "nuisance" candidates.

In a phone interview with GMA News Online, Pichay said that while the penalties in the Ombudsman decision was "immediately" executory, they were not "final and executory" as he still had a pending appeal on his case before the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Pichay argued that as a member of the House of Representative he was not subject to disciplinary actions of the Ombudsman pursuant to RA 6770. — DVM, GMA News