MANILA – Former Iloilo City mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog was among the government officials dismissed “recently” by the Office of the Ombudsman, according to President Rodrigo Duterte.
During his nationwide address last night, Duterte said Mabilog was dismissed for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Mabilog fled the country in August 2017 yet amid Duterte’s continued linking of the then mayor to illegal drugs.
While it was not specified what case led to Mabilog’s dismissal, the former mayor was dismissed by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales in 2018 over a towing deal way back in 2015.
The dismissal came with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and prohibition from taking the civil service examinations.
To recall, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Iloilo City on April 8, 2014 enacted a towing ordinance that incorporated the use of a towing clamp.
On Feb. 17, 2015, Mabilog was authorized to enter into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on behalf of the Iloilo City government with the 3L Towing Services for the implementation of the ordinance.
The MOA was confirmed one week after but three days later, the former mayor through an urgent letter informed the SP of its suspension due to technical issues.
On May 19, 2015, Leny Garcia, proprietor of 3L, offered to withdraw from the MOA.
Mabilog was among the local officials previously tagged by President Duterte as involved in illegal drugs in 2016. He left the country in August 2017 and has not returned since.
Two months after, in October 2017, Mabilog was ordered dismissed from the service by the Ombudsman for “serious dishonesty relative to his unlawful acquisition of wealth.”
He was also perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
According to the Ombudsman, Mabilog failed to “properly account or explain his sources of income”, specifically the P8.9-million increase in the mayor’s wealth within one year from 2012 to 2013.
The mayor’s wealth, as stated in his 2013 Statement of Assets Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), was P68,341,622.40 – higher by P8,983,082.52 from his 2012 SALN of P59,358,539.89.
The complaint against Mabilog was filed by journalist and former Iloilo provincial administrator Manuel Mejorada in 2015. He claimed the increase in the mayor’s wealth was “grossly disproportionate to his legitimate income as a public official and businessman.”
Despite opportunities given Mabilog to rebut Mejorada’s assertion, the Ombudsman said the mayor “still failed to sufficiently explain/answer how he was able to acquire properties, the amount of which were manifestly out of proportion to his salaries and other lawful incomes, thus there is prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth.”
Mabilog was also slapped with accessory penalties. These were the following:
* cancellation of civil service eligibility
* forfeiture of retirement benefits
* prohibition from taking civil service examinations
Mabilog argued before the Ombudsman that his family was already financially well-off prior to his joining public office, that he was a successful businessman, and that his wife Maria Victoria worked for over 20 years as comptroller of a Canada-based company.
To further justify the increase in his net worth thru acquisitions of new real property and investments, Mabilog cited his several businesses and submitted his wife’s Income Tax and Benefits Returns (from 2007 to 2009) and Tax Reassessments (from 2010 to 2012).
But the Ombudsman was not convinced. It said Mabilog did not present “proof material to the period covered” (2012 to 2013), specifically his wife’s 2013 lawful source of income and proof of income from the mayor’s business interests disclosed in his SALNs.
“The confluence of the foregoing circumstances leads to the inevitable conclusion that respondent, in not sufficiently presenting valid proof of his or his wife’s lawful incomes to justify his acquisition of wealth…within a span of one year, is indeed guilty of acts of dishonesty and is motivated by bad faith,” read part of the Ombudsman’s decision.
This “failure to properly account or explain his sources of income establishes the presence of malicious intent to conceal the truth, causing grave prejudice to the government,” added the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s ruling, dated Aug. 29, 2017, was penned by Rachel Cariaga-Favila, graft investigation and prosecution officer III, and approved on Oct. 6, 2017 by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang./PN
