On Monday last week, the first day of October, we were witness to what in the Philippines amounts to a minor miracle – a high ranking government official voluntarily relinquishing office.
In our country, where we have come to expect those in power to cling with all their might to public office even in the face of public outrage, widespread scorn, or even court orders, the resignation of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairperson Benjamin Abalos came as a welcome surprise. As some quarters put it, his resignation set “an example” that should be viewed as a “victory for the public.” Similarly, it “spared” Congress and the public from the “tedious and tiring impeachment process.”
But though Abalos’ resignation may indeed constitute a refreshing draught of delicadeza amid the desert of current public conscience, it may not be as selfless as many of us would want to believe. After all, the good Chairperson, in announcing his resignation, was quick to clarify that he was “not admitting guilt for any wrongdoing” nor was he “giving up on [his] crusade to clear [his] name and reputation.” Going one step further, Abalos and his lawyer even announced that they would file libel charges against his two principal accusers, Joey De Venecia and Romulo Neri, based on the “false testimony” they gave before the Senate.
Clearly therefore, the resignation is the furthest thing from a conscience-salving confession. If anything, it would seem that the principal motivation was to avoid an embarrassing, and perhaps potentially explosive, impeachment proceeding in Congress.
Resignation as a means to avoid removal proceedings or disciplinary sanctions, though not always disallowed, is definitely discouraged under our law. For instance, under the Local Government Code, a local official facing removal through a recall election is barred from resigning. Similarly, the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that “resignation should not be used either as an escape or as an easy out to evade administrative liability.”
The reason for this is self-evident: there is a high level of public interest in ensuring that public officials are held accountable for any wrongdoing committed while in office. While resignation may seem like a “shortcut” solution to the administrative process, it nonetheless prevents full disclosure of the extent of the wrongdoing, as well as imposition of the full set of legal sanctions.
In the case of Abalos, a full blown impeachment would have led, most likely, to disclosures that would provide a more complete picture of the entire ZTE scandal – including the names and involvement of other public figures. Similarly, a conviction by an impeachment court would be a legal finding of Abalos’ culpability that could lead to additional penalties, such as imprisonment.
As it stands, his resignation leaves too many questions unanswered. Of course, one way to find the answers, and prevent his “escape,” is to insist that, despite the resignation, criminal charges must be aggressively pursued against him.
