Banner Before Header

Negros court orders arrest, 15-days jail term for ex-SRA chief

‘WOA’ versus Serafica vindicates Atty. Vic Rodriguez

0 69
THE Regional Trial Court in Negros Occidental has issued a ‘warrant of arrest’ (WOA) against former Sugar Regulatory Administrator Hermenegildo Serafica after being found guilty of indirect contempt of court.

Himamaylan City RTC Branch 55 Judge Walter Zorilla, who initiated the complaint, said Serafica issued SRA Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 2021-2022, despite having full knowledge that his sala had earlier issued a preliminary injunction against the importation of more sugar that is being opposed by local sugar planters coming from Region 6.

Enrique M. Tayo, acting personally and on behalf of the Negros Occidental Federation of Farmers’ Association, had earlier sought the intervention of the court over the decision of the SRA to import 200,000 metric tons of sugar

Finding merit, Zorilla last March 2, 2022, issued a temporary court injunction forbidding the SRA from proceeding with the importation.

A local news outlet, Premier News Venture (PNV), in an article posted in its website last September 27, 2022, said Serafica is to be jailed for 15 days and to pay a fine of P30,000.

It further reported that despite the court injunction, Serafica and the SRA board last May 4, 2022, proceeded to adopt Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 2021-2022, with the subject, “Resumption of Implementation of Sugar Order No. 3”, that allows importation of 200,000 metric tons of standard grade refined sugar and bottler’s grade refined sugar.

‘Serafica, in his explanation, through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) said he did not disobey, resist or otherwise violate the courts WPI (writ of preliminary injunction), and he acted in good faith when SRA issued MC 11, since SRA merely relied on his counsel’s advice,’ the article said.

Serafica further averred that he did not violate the WPI since MC-11 expressly excluded Region 6, which is under the jurisdiction of the court, from the circular’s coverage.

The court, however, did not buy into Serafica’s specious argument, saying it is “is utterly misplaced.”

“Clearly, there is absolutely nothing in the preliminary injunction that enjoined in the implementation of Sugar Order N0. 3 only in the 6th Judicial Region,” the court pointed out.

“There is no doubt that the contemptuous act of Serafica, in issuing MC 11, and in allowing the implementation of Sugar Order No. 3, despite the existence of  a writ of preliminary injunction, during the pendency of a special civil action for declaratory relief, “put this court into utter disrepute and disrespect,” Zorilla said.

“This cannot be condoned, much less left unpunished,” Zorilla said, according to the PNV report.

‘Vindication’ for Rodriguez

The court’s order to arrest, jail and fine Serafica, is also seen as “vindication” for former Executive Secretary Atty. Victor Rodriguez, who sounded the alarm bell over the decision of Serafica and the SRA Board to implement another sugar order, Sugar Order No. 4 last August, calling for another wave of sugar importation totaling 300,000 metric tons.

The issuance of SO-4 was without the knowledge and approval of President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong Marcos Jr., who is also the concurrent secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

Aside from trying to bypass the authority of PBBM, the WPI issued by the sala of Judge Zorilla was among the reasons cited by Rodriguez in opposing SO-4.

While the resulting brouhaha resulted to the forced resignation of Serafica and the other SRA board members—Undersecretary Leocadio Sebastian, Atty. Roland Beltran and Aurelio Gerardo Valderrama Jr.– it also forced Rodriguez to resign as Executive Secretary last September 17, 2022, and his transfer to the post of Presidential Chief of Staff.

Last September 8, 2022, the result of the investigation conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee over SO-4 had recommended for the filing of corruption charges against Serafica and the rest of the resigned SRA Board before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Leave A Reply