CA: Ombudsman warranted in sacking Liong for Pharmally scandal

Court of Appeals in Manila
Supreme Court

Court of Appeals in Manila
Supreme Court

An unnamed law firm has been warned by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla against committing a crime in an effort to…
ILOILO CITY — An Antique-based civic and environmental advocacy group said the complaints it filed before the Office of…

The country has struggled to make progress because officials seek to enrich themselves through public office, Ombudsman…

The Office of the Ombudsman has reopened its review of records related to the 2019 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games…

One of the reasons that the country has struggled to progress was the presence of individuals looking to build their…
The Court of Appeals sustained the dismissal of Overall Deputy Ombudsman Warren Rex Liong from his position due to his involvement in the multi-billion peso Pharmally scandal.
“The dismissal from government service of petitioner Warren Rex Hernandez Liong is maintained together with all the accessory penalties that have been imposed by the Ombudsman,” said a decision from the investigative body’s Third Division on 8 April.
It further stated that its resolution had been determined due to a lack of merit on the part of Liong’s petition.
Liong’s removal from his office resulted from his alleged negligence during his time as the director of the Procurement Service-Department of Budget and Management in approving contracts for Pharmally in spite of their non-compliance with required documents to receive funds.
It was revealed in a hearing under the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee that the company was able to receive a total of P8 to P11 billion supply contracts as a result of Liong’s approval.
His subsequent dismissal was ordered by then Ombudsman Samuel Martires through grave misconduct and serious dishonesty for his participation in the aforementioned acts.
However, Liong claimed through his petition that he was merely abiding by the Bayanihan Heal As One Act that was promulgated during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which he said disregarded the provisions under the Government Procurement Reform Act.
CA, on the other hand, argued that interpretation of the law should not come at the expense of undermining the Constitution.