Supreme Court affirms ex-police chief Purisima’s suspension

THE SUPREME Court (SC) has upheld the six months preventive suspension of former Philippine National Police (PNP) Director Alan L. Purisima issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2014 in connection with the alleged anomalous contract of the PNP with a courier service in 2011.

File photo of former Philippine National Police chief Alan Purisima during a Senate committee hearing on the Mamasapano incident in 2015. — SENATE PRIB

In a statement released by the SC Public Information Office (PIO), the SC’s First Division denied Mr. Purisima’s petition for Review on Certiorari and upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that affirmed the preventive suspension issued by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.

“The High Court held that the Ombudsman acted within her powers and that the same is explicitly authorized to issue a preventive suspension order under Sec. 24 of RA 6770 when conditions are met,” the SC said in a statement.

“The Ombudsman found that the evidence of guilt against [Mr.] Purisima was strong enough to place him under preventive suspension. Said finding cannot be said to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it was based on supporting documentary evidence, none of which were questioned to be inadmissible,” the High Court added.

The case stemmed from Mr. Purisima’s approval of a P100-million contract with Werfast Documentation Agency Inc., which was tapped by the PNP for the delivery of firearm licenses in May 2011.

The Office of the Ombudsman, on June 30, 2015, ordered the dismissal of Mr. Purisima and other police officers for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and grave abuse of authority.

Mr. Purisima elevated the case to the SC, claiming that Ms. Carpio-Morales violated his right to due process and prejudged his case when she issued a six-month preventive suspension.

But the High Court said that the Ombudsman is allowed to “issue a preventive suspension order prior to the filing of an answer or counter-affidavit, considering that the same is but a preventive measure.”

“Ultimately, it should be borne in mind that the issuance of a preventive suspension order does not amount to a prejudgment of the merits of the case,” the SC said.

The 13-page decision was penned by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. — Kristine Joy V. Patag