Amid the unsubstantiated intrigue being spread online, the Ombudsman cited justice and fair play as the basis for its recent decision to lift the preventive suspension on Energy Regulatory Commission Chairperson Monalisa Dimalanta.

“When the reason for the preventive suspension has already ceased, justice and fair play demands that the preventive suspension should not be for the full six-month period allowed by law but should immediately be lifted,” the anti-graft body said in a statement.

In a 22 October order, the Ombudsman stated that “the ground which justifies the continued imposition of a preventive suspension no longer exists,” thus deeming the suspension unnecessary.

The Office of the Executive Secretary formally transmitted this order on 30 October, enabling Dimalanta to resume her duties immediately.

Dimalanta started serving the Ombudsman suspension last 10 September, meaning her reinstatement came earlier than was contained in the order.

The preventive suspension was lifted prior to the expiration of the six months provided by law, “as in other cases investigated by the Ombudsman,” the statement read.

Malacañang reinstated Dimalanta as ERC head based on the Ombudsman order.

The Office of the Ombudsman issued the statement after it had raised questions about lifting the six-month preventive suspension and despite denying Dimalanta’s appeal to overturn the suspension.

The Ombudsman, in an order dated 22 October 2024, “motu propio” or of its own volition, lifted the 20 August 2024 preventive suspension order meted on Dimalanta.

The ERC chief’s suspension stemmed from a complaint filed by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms Inc. (Nasecore), which alleged that the ERC had failed to recalculate Meralco’s distribution rate.

Collegial body decision

The Ombudsman said that Dimalanta had filed a motion for reconsideration of the suspension order.

The ERC chief, in her appeal, questioned why she was the only one charged, pointing out that the regulator made decisions as a collegial body.

Ombudsman Samuel Martires on 1 October said he denied Dimalanta’s motion for reconsideration “considering that there was sufficient basis for the issuance of the preventive suspension.”

Dismissal of the motion for reconsideration and the order lifting the preventive suspension are two separate actions.

He explained that in Quimbo vs. Gervacio (GR 155620, 9 August 2005), a “preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation.”

“The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.”