Treñas approves suspension of San Isidro village chief

BY GEROME DALIPE IV

ILOILO City – Mayor Jerry Treñas has approved the recommendation of the City Council to place San Isidro Barangay Captain Ronela Juaneza under preventive suspension for 60 days.

Juaneza confirmed on her social media page the receipt of Treñas’ order suspending her as the Blue Ribbon Committee will begin its investigation on Aug. 28.

The village chief said she received the suspension order on Aug. 21. Councilor Ruby Gallano will be the acting barangay captain while Juaneza is serving her suspension.

But Jueneza lamented that several documents about the complaint have not been endorsed to her. These include the transmittal reports from 2019 to 2023, used checks, and official receipts of the concerned transactions.

Councilor Rex Marcus Sarabia, Blue Ribbon Committee chairperson, has scheduled the conduct of an investigation “in aid of legislation” against Juaneza on Aug. 28.

The committee will begin its preliminary conference on the allegations that Juaneza illegally released public funds amounting to P818,085.04.

The City Council earlier recommended Juaneza’s suspension for 60 days while the Committee is investigating the village official for the alleged irregular fund release.

In its resolution, the Committee has asked Treñas to place Juaneza under preventive suspension while the investigation against the respondent for three counts of violation of Republic Act 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), which constitutes misconduct in office and abuse of authority, is ongoing.

“It is therefore clear that if left to continue in office, the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence for any offenses committed by the Respondent are in danger, and that the Respondent Punong Barangay must be preventively suspended for the maximum period allowable by the Local Government Code, which is Sixty (60) days,” read the committee report.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Eugenio Bolivar, Cheryl Maralit, Ruby Gallano, Rene Dimasu-ay, and Zenith Rigby, who accused Juaneza and Janette Gacuma, the village treasurer, of dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, and abuse of authority and violation of Republic Act 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

The complainants alleged that Juaneza violated the Government Procurement Reform Act for allowing the disbursement of public funds on various dates from December 2023 to January 2024 without observing public competitive bidding.

These include purchases of office supplies worth 94,122.32; well-milled rice cost of P365,488; drugs and medicines for senior citizens for January 2024 worth 235,660.72 and encashed several checks for payment of several barangay hall’s operating expenses.

Replying to the charges, Juaneza denied the charges, saying the allegations in the complaint were malicious, self-serving, baseless, and bereft of any merit.

She claimed the case was a malicious persecution hurled against her by her opponent last election. Juaneza said her opponents retaliated after filing the graft complaint against her predecessor and his treasurer over unliquidated barangay funds amounting to P1.8 million.

The village chief maintained that all their purchases and disbursement or release of barangay funds underwent the proper procedure, tackled during barangay meetings, and proceeded according to protocol. She sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.

In the resolution, the Committee dismissed the allegations in the complaint stemming from the encashment of checks for payments of various barangay hall’s operating expenses.

However, the Committee found evidence to proceed with the investigation against Juaneza for allowing the disbursement of funds without the approval of the barangay bids and awards committee (BAC).

The Committee said Juaneza could not simply resort to “shopping” as a mode of procurement under the Government Procurement Reform Act since there was no urgency when the goods were purchased. On the other hand, the committee dismissed the complaint against Gacuma for lack of jurisdiction since the respondent was not an elective official./PN

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here