Are there many scandals nationwide similar to that which has erupted in and around the Municipal Health Office of Cainta? If so, this would seem to be a case of the leadership of a local government (the municipality of Cainta) and the regional and provincial units of the Health department, failing to exercise proper oversight and monitoring of the town’s Health Office and the health centers under it.

If there are many such scandals—not only in the health offices of municipalities, and perhaps cities, but also in the various municipal structures of the various Cabinet departments, should the decentralization policy now in force be revisited?

For if such things as have happened in Cainta’s Municipal Health department are nationally widespread, the devolution of functions and powers mandated by the national government’s decentralization policy must be a failure.

What happened in Cainta can roughly be summarized as follows (and some of the detailed documents are published in this special report).

Dr. Olga Alegre Abellanosa, the Cainta municipal health officer, and three other doctors of Cainta’s Health Centers were named in the complaint filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

The charges (see the article “Complaints against, defense of the town health officer”) were filed by Rosalina Alano, the former tax information officer of Cainta and also a former consultant of the town.

Alano’s complaint, filed June 6, 2008, alleges falsification of public documents, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violations of Republic Act 6713—the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees of the Government—against Dr. Alegre Abellanosa, Dr. Yolanda Orlina, Dr. Gliceria Ramirez and Dr. Dennis Jose Torres.

The case involves also the use by Alano as part of her evidence a transcript of a staff meeting called by Dr. Olga Alegre Abellanosa to talk to them about changes in the way the health office and the health centers were to be run thenceforth because of the charges made by Ms. Alano.

But the situation was made tense by the circulation of a poison letter maligning Dr. Abellanosa and members of her family. 

Dr. Abellanosa believes the author of that defamatory open letter, without a sender, to be Ms. Alano “and her cohorts” whom Dr. Abellanosa told The Times were “caught circulating in the whole premise[s] of [the] Municipal Office of Cainta.”

That letter, Dr. Abellanosa and the three doctors accused by Ms. Alano in her complaint told The Times in a letter, is “now the subject of a pending litigation before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo docketed as Criminal Case No. 089-39318 for libel where Ms. Rosalina Alano is the accused.” 

Unbeknownst to Dr. Abellanosa, some of her underlings recorded the speech or talk she gave at the staff meeting. (See article “Libelous poison letter leads to a revealing staff meeting.”)

Because of the recording, the case has come to involve the Department of Justice .

The Justice department had to make a ruling on whether recording with a cell phone a speech delivered at a staff meeting violates the Anti-Wiretapping Act.  The Justice department ruled that it does not.

This is an important precedent.

A group of 13 doctors and health-work professionals employed by the Cainta Municipal Health Office signed a joint affidavit authenticating the cell phone recording of the talk Dr. Alegre Abellanosa gave her assembled subordinates at the staff meeting. In the recorded talk, Dr. Alegre Abellanosa among other acts:

*Scolded some of her underlings in unpleasant language.
*Spoke about relations with men and asked who among the women there did not have such relations.
*Admitted that she does some graft (kurakot) and berated her subalterns with whom she said she shared the fruits of her kurakot.
*Admitted her business relations with a Korean firm.
*Threatened to fight to the death (patayan) and spoke about liquidating those who she thought had maligned her.
*Spoke abusively to some of the staff present. 

The Civil Service Commission rules

For “insufficiency of evidence,” CSC’s Regional Office No. 4 on November 11, 2009 dismissed the complaint against Dr. Orlina.

For “lack of jurisdiction”—because they had resigned their positions—the Civil Service Commission dismissed the complaint against Dr. Ramirez and Dr. Torres.

The same CSC decision said, “Dr. Olga Alegre Abellanosa shall be issued a Formal Charge for Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties.”

On November 25, 2009, Alano filed a petition for review with CSC Regional Office No. 4. 

Her petition citied as issues to be resolved:

1.Whether CSC Regional Office No. 4 erred in dismissing the complaint against Dr. Ramirez and Dr. Torres on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because they had resigned.  Alano pointed out relevant provisions of the law and the rule that the CSC is not automatically divested of jurisdiction because of an employee’s resignation.

2.Whether CSC Region 4 erred in dismissing Dr. Orlina for insufficiency of evidence. 

Alano presented a summary of the evidence she had offered and argued that certifications made by barangay (village) officials proving Alano’s claims of falsification of DTR (daily time record) should not be given much weight since the doctors did not report to these officials.

3.Whether CSC Region 4 erred in finding a prima facie case against Dr. Alegre-Abellanosa only for a light offense. Alano argued, citing the various pieces of evidence she submitted, that Cainta’s municipal health officer should be sanctioned for graver offenses.

The CSC decision on Ms. Alano’s appeal is being awaited.

But the larger issue that concerns the matter of decentralization and devolution is a subject of deep study for those who wish to reform governance in our country.

Are local governments capable of supervising the devolved offices?