MANILA – President Rodrigo Duterte has signed Executive Order 42, ending a months-long standoff at the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority with the appointment of one person to hold the roles of SBMA administrator and SBMA chairman.
The president’s order resulted in the ouster of SBMA chairman Martin Diño, an anticrime crusader and Duterte’s partymate in the PDP Laban. His rival who held the post of administrator, Wilma Eisma, was picked to hold the new positions, as the sole official calling the shots at the sprawling freeport built from former US baselands.
Diño said Tuesday he “respected” the President’s decision, but nonetheless filed a case against the administrator, Wilma Eisma, before the Ombudsman.
Under EO 42, the designated administrator (in this case Eisma) also becomes the ex officio chairman of SBMA.
The EO 42 had effectively invalidated EO 340, issued by President Gloria Arroyo in 2004, which split the positions of administrator and chairman.
Diño and Eisma had been engaged in a turf battle for months, causing confusion at times in the crucial freeport.
New post for Diño possible – Abella
What happens to Diño now? According to presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella, Malacañang Palace will issue a new appointment paper for Diño, but would not give details.
There is talk that Diño will get an appointment in the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
Abella, meanwhile, characterized the relations between Duterte and Diño as “civil.
Interviewed in “The Big Story” on Bloomberg TV Philippines, Diño gave this reply when asked if he was suprised by the EO that basically names a new chairman and a new administrator for the SBMA : “That is a prerogative of the President. I respect that.”
Diño, who was attending the 120th anniversary of the Department of Justice, said he had not read yet EO 42.
He admitted hearing there is a new post in store for him, but added he has no idea yet what that was.
Diño said he had written the President just a few days into his appointment last year, precisely asking for clarification as to the roles of chairman and administrator. He said all appointments to SBMA had vested the two roles in just one person, but the split designations happened during the time of President Arroyo.
“Ngayon, kung halimbawa iyan ang napili ni president na ano so be it, congratulations. ‘Yun lang naman, kaya lang ako nung nilagay ako ni presidente diyan may mga inutos siya sa akin at lahat ng inutos niya sa akin sinunod ko [If that’s the President’s decision, so be it. Congratulations. But I must note that I did everything the President asked me to do].”
He said he did not know until today that Eisma had been chosen to hold the two positions that the new executive order had fused in just one person.
“Actually hindi ko nga alam na may ganon na pala ngayon. Just this morning I filed a case sa Ombudsman against Eisma based on a COA report. Wala ho akong pinanggagalingan ng mga complaint kundi sa COA kasi ang COA, sila ang gumagawa ng mga observation wala naman silang ngipin para mag-file ng complaints kaya dapat may nagtutuloy ng findings ng COA [I am relying solely on COA for my complaint. It’s COA that makes observations, but they don’t have the teeth to file cases, so someone else should pursue the filing of cases],” Diño said.
Asked by The Big Story anchor Roby Alampay to rationalize his filing of a case against Eisma despite saying he “respected” the President’s decision, Diño shot back that he didn’t know that Eisma was going to be appointed. Besides he said, even if someone had been appointed, that should not stop the filing of a case where documents are available to provide evidence of wrongdoing.
He said his complaint accused Eisma of issuing a check even though she is not a bonded officer.
“You said earlier that the President has the prerogative to remove you and to appoint somebody that he trusts. You are telling us now that after that appointment you are filing a case in the Ombudsman against Ms. Eisma?” Alampay asked Diño. The latter replied that as a member of the anticrime group Volunteers AgainstCrime and Corruption (VACC), he had the responsibility to check wrongdoing.
“VACC ako. Basta’t meron kang violation kahit na-appoint ka ng President or what. Hindi naman porke’t na-appoint ka ng presidente libre ka na sa mga ginawa mo. May COA report may pinagbabasehan tayo. Ikaw ba ibig mo sabihin kapag na-appoint ka ng presidente hindi ka na pwedeng file-an ng kaso kung meron kang mali? O, tanong kita.”
[I’m with VACC. If you violated the law, whether or not the President appoointed you, a case can be filed against you. There’s a COA report we’re basing this case on. Let me ask you: you think, just because the President appointed you to a post, a case can’t be filed against you if you did something wrong?].”
