Saturday, April 13, 2013

Biazon should resign or commit seppuku

Seppuko means harakiri: ritual suicide
 by self-disembowelment on a sword;
practiced by samurai in the traditional
Japanese society.

Biazon (Extreme Left) with the author (white shirt) who
moderated the former's press conference with
the media  in the 2010 Senatorial Election in Dagupan

I could not fathom why some sectors wanted take-no-prisoners former PNP chief and exiting Senator Ping Lacson to head as oil-czar of the Bureau of Custom.
Why not appoint him instead to the BOC’s top post so we can get rid of the lousiest Custom Commissioner Ruffy Biazon who brought his office to the dogs?
 Biazon, for the sake of delicadeza, should have resigned or committed seppuko ( a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment or cutting the stomach with a samurai) after he plunged his office with a P60 billion deficit from a tax goal of P347 billion last year.
 With Ramon Ang of Petron and Rosendo So of Abono Party-List and Swine Development Council exposed to the public that the government loses P30 billion and P32 billion in petroleum and farm products ( pork, poultry, rice), respectively, Biazon should be scampering already by packing his things and leave his office in Intramuros.
Biazon, a Medical Technology graduate, have the gall to go to the TV and lashed out at his critics whom he accused to bad mouth him because they have agenda.
 I started to believe in the rumors that Malacanang needs him at the custom office so he can raise tens if not hundred of millions of pesos to fund the campaign of the Liberal Party all over the country. If illegal number games jueteng proliferate nationwide because powers that be sanctioned it for tens of millions of payola a month, it is possible that spate of smuggling at the expense of our farmers and poultry raiser ensue because of the millions of pesos protection money people upstairs receive. Anong “Tuwid na Daan (Straight Path)?”, geez man, we live in a hypocritical society.
 Has the Ombudsman dilly-dallied with its resolution in the plunder case filled by Bugallon Mayor Ric Orduna against Pangasinan Governor Amado T. Espino? Does it knows that the accusation has not been backed up by documents but sheer hearsays thus it lacks probable cause for an information for the Sandiganbayan to issue a warrant of arrest against Espino? In December 14, 2012, Orduna filled a Complaint –Affidavit (CA) against Espino at the office of the Ombudsman a string of Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act where one of them is the non-bailalble plunder case in Manila. According to the adjudication period of the Ombudsman Act as prescribed by the Rules of Court the most that the investigating officer can resolve the complaint against the governor of Pangasinan would be 60 days.
This how the procedure works: After 10 days the investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent (Espino) attaching to it a copy of Orduna’s complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents. Within 10 days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, Espino shall submit His Counter-Affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. Espino shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit. If Espino can not be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating office shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant. The investigating officer has set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified (they call it Clarificatory Investigation) from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right to examine or cross-examine. They have, however, would submit to the investigating officer which questions have to be asked the party or witness concerned. The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the Counter-Affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days. Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
 Complainant like Orduna who received the Counter-Affidavit files a Reply-Affidavit and respondent like Espino files a Comment on the Reply-Affidavit that takes another 20 days to resolve by the investigating officer appointed by the Ombudsman. From December 14 where Orduna rode shotgun to Manila and filed the case, the adjudication period of 60 days should have ended in February 14, 2013 with a resolution. But look mama, it is already more than 120 days but there is no such thing as a Resolution that dismisses or upholds the complaint against Espino. What’s cooking, Ombudsman? (You can read my selected columns at and articles at Pangasinan News Aro. You can send comments too at

No comments:

Post a Comment