MANILA -- The Office of the Ombudsman has found probable cause to indict former Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Commissioner Ma. Rowena Amelia Guanzon for two counts of violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Ombudsman Resolution, a copy of which ABS-CBN obtained from Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, who is one of the complainants, alleged that Guanzon prematurely disclosed confidential information during two interviews.

Guanzon was the Presiding Commissioner of COMELEC’s First Division that handled the disqualification cases against then Presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

• Guanzon says 'no ethical issue' in Comelec allowing her party-list substitution

On January 27, 2022 she granted an interview with GMA News’ Sandra Aguinaldo where she said she had voted to disqualify Marcos Jr. from the elections.

On January 28, 2022 she told Rappler’s Paterno Esmaquel II the name of the ponente in charge of writing the Resolution, and discussed her separate opinion.

COMELEC Commissioner Aimee Ferolino was the ponente.

“Respondent’s contention that the information disclosed by her is not considered a confidential information fails to convince,” the Ombudsman Resolution read.

Based on COMELEC Resolution No. 10685 entitled “In the Matter of People’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Manual,” the Ombudsman said “all information acquired by respondent in the exercise of her quasi-judicial powers are considered confidential information.”

• SC tells Guanzon: Explain public statements on SC petition

The Resolution also cited the Supreme Court’s prohibition on the disclosure of a ponente’s identity and internal deliberations, which supposedly applies to other branches of government such as COMELEC.

According to the document: “Therefore, until the decision or resolution embodying the action is released to the public, the individual positions or votes or opinions of the COMELEC commissioners are considered confidential. Only after the official release that the name of the ponente and her separate opinion should be made available to the public.”

“With respondent’s improper disclosure of confidential information, this Office finds probable cause to indict her for violation of Section 3 (k) of Republic Act No. 3019,” the Resolution further stated.

Section 3 (k) provides—Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

The Ombudsman, however, dismissed the complainants’ accusation that Guanzon violated Section 7 of Republic Act 6713 or the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”

• Guanzon files cyberlibel, unjust vexation raps vs NYC chair

“Complainant failed to present proof that respondent was motivated by any private interest or that she gave any private party unwarranted benefits, which prompted the disclosure of the information. There is also no proof that respondent intended to prejudice the public interest with such disclosure,” the Resolution said.

The Ombudsman also disregarded Topacio’s and fellow complainant Diego Magpantay’s allegation of a violation of “The Revised Penal Code” Article 229 which is about “revelation of secrets by an officer.”

It said “informations revealed by respondent are not secret and there is no evidence that said premature disclosure of the information caused damage to public interest.”

The Ombudsman Resolution was penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III Fatima Kristine Franco-Ilao and approved by Deputy Ombudsman Jose Balmeo, Jr.

FROM THE ARCHIVES:

Watch more News on iWantTFC