When the ‘fruit of a poisoned tree’ does not matter

A CASE of “suspected smuggling” again reached our attention, and this time with graver result to the importer while also showing how the bureaucracy can frustrate even the good intention of the Commissioner of Customs.

I say ‘again’ because this matter has been previously brought to the attention of Customs Commissioner Ariel F. Nepomuceno last July 2025, during his first month in office and which he promised to resolve immediately and decisively as it directly affect his leadership in the agency.

The case is about a “raid” conducted by the MICP-CIIS at an industrial compound in Guiguinto, Bulacan that is renting out warehouses to importers and other businesses last July 11, 2025.

To recall, on July 2, 2025, his second day in office, Commissioner Ariel issued a memorandum stopping the implementation of ALL Letters of Authority (LOA) and Mission Orders (MOs) issued by his predecessor, Commissioner Bienvenido Rubio. This order took effect that very day.

The official reason is to ensure that all enforcement efforts are “legally sound, properly documented, and aligned with the Bureau’s direction moving forward,” he explained.

What was not stated is that these LOAs have been repeatedly abused—for the enrichment of a few— and at the expense of the BOC’s credibility that Commissioner Nepomuceno is determined to restore, with an iron fist, if necessary.

In a letter to the consignee, thru counsel dated July 29, 2025, Commissioner Ariel assured that he has directed the CIIS and its Investigation Division to “examine the service records of the LOA and MO and (their) implementation procedure” and to “verify” the involved agents’ compliance with his July 2 instruction.

From what we can conclude, this happened because those charged to look into the matter opted not to make any investigation of the issues raised by the consignee as directed by Comm. Ariel.

He also said: “Rest assured that this office takes your concern seriously and will inform you of the outcome and any appropriate actions to be taken thereon.”

When bureaucracy rears its ugly head

And here is where the “power of the bureaucracy” rears its ugly head when subalterns decide to interpret their boss’ intention in their own way.

As far as we know, there was no update on the investigation ordered by Commissioner Ariel. Instead, those involved were effectively “exonerated” when the MICP decided to first, issue an WSD (warrant of seizure and detention) against the goods in September 2025 and finally, to forfeit them in a decision handed down last May 19.

From what we can conclude, this happened because those charged to look into the matter opted not to make any investigation of the issues raised by the consignee as directed by Comm. Ariel.

Instead, it appeared that they adopted, in toto, the claim of the CIIS team that their operation took place not on July 11, 2025– as sworn by the importer’s general manager and supervisor– but on June 5, 2025, or nearly a month before Commissioner Ariel took office.

The group, headed by IO1 Jovan Lugtu, was armed with the LOA/MO that Commissioner Bienvenido Rubio signed on June 2, 2025.

Regardless of the date of the inspection, what the “bright boys” at the lower rung of the bureaucracy also neatly set aside was the importer’s claim under oath that the inspection by the CIIS also violated CAO 03-2019.

CAO 03-2019 mandates that the original of the LOA should be given to the “warehouse owner, operator, lessee, occupant, or any party responsible for the goods” at the premises where the inspection would be conducted and that any inspection must be done in the presence of the warehouse owner or authorized official.

As both the warehouse general manager and supervisor attested, they never met with the CIIS on June 5 nor were they shown a copy of the LOA when the inspection purportedly happened on July 11.

Instead of meeting with them, the CIIS admitted they met instead with the LESSOR of the warehouses, which is a violation of CAO 03-2019.

It would now appear that the Legal Division of the MICP and their accomplices at the CIIS committed two grievous, deliberate mistakes in their “investigation” that resulted to the seizure and forfeiture of the goods in question.

First, when they ignored what Commissioner Nepomuceno is wanting to know: when did the inspection happened? Second, when they did not establish if CAO 03-2019 was indeed violated during the inspection.

By solely giving weight on the claims of the CIIS, no wonder that the goods, after a proceeding lasting nearly one year, ended up being forfeited by Customs– and with Commissioner Nepomuceno, “blinded” from subsequent development– appearing as complicit in the whole affair.

While we are not a lawyer, there is this legal axiom called the ‘fruit of the poisoned tree,’ whereby any result proceeding from an illegal order or action is deemed ‘void ab initio’ (void from the start). This, we believe, is at the core of what we call “substantive” justice and due process.

In this case, however, the fruit of the poisoned tree is immaterial if it can save the “neck” of some people from disciplinary action.

We also learn that an administrative complaint against the CIIS team involved was also filed, although we would not also be surprised if this related development also never reached the attention of Commissioner Nepomuceno.

Kung patuloy siyang “pinapaikutan” at “binubulag” ng ilan niyang mga tauhan, hindi natin alam. But this is another subject worth discussing some other time.

Abangan!