Prelim injunction spares Governor Degamo anew, what’s his charm?

DUMAGUETE CITY – Two 60-day temporary restraining order restraining the Ombudsman Visayas and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and its representatives from enforcing the third dismissal order of Gov. Roel Degamo expired on Friday, March 16, 2018.

However, Degamo’s legal counsel Atty Richard Enojo has confirmed that he received a copy of the preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in Cebu.

Enojo said he received an order from the Court of Appeals Cebu last Friday granting the issuance of a preliminary injunction which is valid up to the time that the main case is resolved.

The next thing Degamo’s legal team will hurdle is to fight for the granting of their petition in their favor. Only then will they be required to submit their position paper in support of their arguments.

The third dismissal order of the governor was a result of the case filed by former board member Melimoore Saycon and this refers to the use of the intelligence fund and the condonation issue while the first two involves the use of the Sendong fund. The first case was filed by June Vincent Gaudan regarding the use of 50% of the calamity fund and the second case was filed by Board Member Jessica Villanueva which Enojo said is a complete duplication of the first case with the same amounts involved.

It was the contention of the governor’s camp that the P10 million calamity fund was spent as intended and was fully liquidated but the Commission on Audit said it has to be returned so Gov. Degamo had to shell out his own money and returned the amount of P10 million. In this case, the government was not prejudiced because the public was served and the money returned. According to Enojo, it was the governor who was prejudiced because the P10 million intelligence fund was spent according to the program and yet he was ordered by COA to return the amount.

The case was filed before Degamo’s election as governor in 2013 and under the Aguinaldo doctrine, he cannot be made liable in any administrative case because the people voted for him through a landslide victory over his opponents in that year, while the condonation could not be applied because the Binay case became final in 2015.