CA: Ombudsman warranted in sacking Liong for Pharmally scandal



The Office of the Ombudsman has filed nine counts of graft against Tarlac 3rd District Representative Noel Rivera over…

The Office of the Ombudsman had filed numerous cases of graft against Tarlac 3rd District Rep. Noel Rivera concerning…

A police officer accused as an accessory in the 57-count murder case stemming from the 2009 Maguindanao…

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said he believes Sen. Loren Legarda and Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Leviste will…

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla claimed that the camp of Leyte 1st District Rep. Martin Romualdez was behind the…
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.