CA Affirms Dismissal From Service of 2 DSWD Officials on PDAF Allocation
CA – The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the 2 DSWD officials from service for the illegal release of PDAF.
The Priority Development Assistance Fund or popularly known as (PDAF) is a people’s money that is used to capital projects.
PDAF’s main purpose is to give the lawmakers financial support and should only be used to benefit the Filipino people.
On the other hand, two government officials from of Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) were allegedly involved in an illegal release of PDAF.
Based on a report from Manila Bulletin, DSWD Regional Director Minda B. Brigoli and Operations Decision Chief Mely S. Pangilinan filed a motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion to the CA.
The CA ordered the dismissal from service of these 2 DSWD officials for allegedly releasing P1 million PDAF money.
On March 18, Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia wrote a resolution issue stating the motion for reconsideration of the two DSWD were denied.
According to the report, In 2008, Brigoli and Pangilinan have disbursed PDAF funds worth of P1 million to the Cooperative Rural Bank of Bulacan (CRBB).
The CRBB is a private company and is not allowed to handle PDAF funds.
The Court of Appeals stated that the CRBB were not authorized to accept the PDAF funds because People’s Organizations (POs) and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) were the only valid recipients.
“Evidently, CRBB was unauthorized to receive the P1,000,000 PDAF since only the NGOs and POs are considered as valid recipients thereof.”
“In spite of the said irregularities, petitioners Brigoli and Pangilinan knowingly participated in the execution of the MOA and the subsequent release of the funds to CRBB,” it added.
Based on the report, the CA said Brigoli and Pangilinan were liable for “serious dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.”
“Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason that would warrant a reversal or modification of the aforementioned Decision.”
“A perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration and its Supplemental Motion shows that no new matters are alleged therein that have not been considered, passed upon, and discussed in the decision sought to be reconsidered,” the Court of Appeals said.
What can you say about this article? Leave your comment and reactions below.
