In an issue of Watchmen Daily Journal published earlier this week, it was reported Bacolod City Legal Officer (CLO), Atty. Joselito Bayatan, announced his office would be preparing several legal remedies on behalf of Bacolod City Mayor Evelio Leonardia after multiple motions for reconsideration (MR) were dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman. In a way, the statement came as a surprise – perhaps it’s yet another side effect of being raised in the west – since it is not common for a city office to serve as personal legal counsel to an elected official.
Many times when elected officials are under scrutiny, they employ the services of outside counsel – one being paid out of their own pocket and not their constituency.
Following the revelation was curious to explore how far the scope of the office extended. As earlier stated, it is an unfamiliar scenario to see a government office operating as personal counsel to a government official, sure they can provide legal advice or guidance, but not to the point where they are providing a deposition for an official being probed – these are things taxpayers should not be footing the bill for.
In contrast, the role of attorney general, a parallel position, many times will review evidence against the accused, not aid them.
In Brazil, Attorney General Rodrigo Janot, or the general prosecutor of Brazil, previously lodged corruption accusations against now-deposed President Dilma Rousseff – who, incidentally, appointed him to the position in 2013. In the United States, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the administration of former President Barack Obama, earlier ordered the Justice Department not to comply by the controversial travel restrictions implemented by the administration of current US President Donald Trump.
Reviewing the apparent role of the similar office in the city, these officials should have been abetting their bosses instead of exercising legal judgment.
Perusing RA 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991, they define the primary role of legal officer as one who will “formulate measures for the consideration of the sanggunian and provide legal assistance and support to the governor or mayor, as the case may be, in carrying out the delivery of basic services and provisions of adequate facilities.”
According to Section 17, which defines “basic services and facilities,” they list among those duties communication and transportation facilities, public works and infrastructure, the procurement of equipment and materials, responsibilities assigned by national offices, allotting government funding to services and facilities, and ensuring the participation of the private sector in local governance.
The other primary duty includes offering legal advice on the implementation of certain programs or projects.
The law also outlines the ability in which the office can investigate officials or employees for “administrative neglect or misconduct in office,” wherein the resulting evidence is reported to the mayor; along with recommending appropriate actions.
The office is also capable of prosecuting individuals at the will of the mayor in regards to “any bond, lease, or other contract upon any breach or violation thereof.”
However, Section 3(i) says the office can also “represent the local government unit in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the local government unit or any official thereof, in his official capacity, is a party.”
While the city government should be a unified body, there is a matter of the legal aspect – regardless of circumstances – that an unbiased hand needs to be played. If an elected official is under fire, it should not be the role of the city government to play defense. Sure, officials can always verbally express their support for certain individuals, but not taking on a role that should be carried out by a third party.
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, then US-President Richard Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox and, instead of the submissive role outlined by RA 7160, both then-Attorney General Eliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Rucklehaus refused on the grounds there was no legal basis for his ouster – both eventually resigning from their respective posts.
The Canadian province of Ontario outlines the role of attorney general as ensuring “the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law,” along with a general legal advisor role.
They also list a section in regards to criminal prosecution where “the attorney general must carry out the minister’s criminal prosecution responsibilities independent of cabinet and of any partisan political pressures.”
As with many governments around the world, the importance of an independent counsel, in terms of public officials, is crucial for the public to see legal proceedings as being handled fairly.
The document also states, in regards to criminal proceedings: “This responsibility has been characterized as a matter of the attorney general acting as the Queen’s attorney – not as a minister of the government.”
It would appear, at least in terms of Ontario, when an attorney general acts on behalf of an official, it’s only for a monarch./WDJ