ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION VOIDED

THE 90-day preventive suspension imposed on Urdaneta City Mayor Julio Parayno III by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) was considered “excessive” by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) as there was only one case filed against him.

Parayno already served part of the suspension, which was executed on August 12, during which he filed a petition in court questioning the provincial government’s order.

The 33-page decision of RTC Judge Crisma R. Vismanos-Nabua of Branch 73 in Urdaneta City on October 16 ruled that the suspension was not just excessive but that the provincial board acted without jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of discretion “when it took cognizance of SP ADM Case No. 02-2024”.

The case involves a complaint against the mayor for alleged violation of the Ease of Doing Business Act (Republic Act 11302) and the Local Government Code (RA 7160).

In her decision, the judge stated that the recommendation for the 90-day preventive suspension of the petitioner Mayor Parayno is premised on the filing of Violations of Section 21 (b) and (e) of RA No. 11202 and Section 60 (c) 0f R 7160.  Technically, according to her, only one violation should stand violation of Section 60 (c) of RA 7160.

This means there is only one case filed against Parayno. Hence, the preventive suspension must not go beyond the 90-day period under Section. 63 of the Local Government Code, the decision states.

According to the judge, a preventive suspension may be imposed at any time provided that, any single preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not extend beyond 60 days, and provided further that if several administrative cases are filed against him, he cannot be preventively suspended for more than 90 days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension.

Parayno reassumed his post on October 17, a day after the RTC decision was issued.

As to the additional one-year suspension of Parayno imposed by the SP based on the same case on October 14, two days before the RTC rendered its judgment, the decision implied: “And since the Sanggunian Panlalawigan of Pangasinan has no jurisdiction, it has no power and authority to continue hearing the present administrative case docketed as SP ADM. Case No. 02-2024 (CTN 2021-0217-5498) for Violation of Section 21 (b) and (e) of RA 11302 and Section 60 (c) of RA 7160 lodged against the petitioner Mayor Parayno and the power to render decision therein.” (Leonardo Micua) 

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments