Graft Charges vs. Gwen Garcia Dismissed by Ombudsman

The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed criminal charges against former Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia and a private contractor in connection with the desilting project in Mananga River, a protected waterway within the Central Cebu Protected Landscape located in Talisay City.

The Ombudsman’s ruling, dated August 29, 2025 and approved by Acting Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Dante Vargas on September 10, 2025, formally clears Garcia of graft allegations tied to her actions during Cebu’s El Niño-driven water crisis.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed on April 21, 2025, by Moises Garcia Deiparine.

He accused Garcia of granting Shalom Construction Inc. a special permit that allowed the extraction of sand and gravel from the Mananga River without first obtaining an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) or a certificate of non-coverage from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

Garcia issued Special Permit 2024-09 to Shalom Construction on May 14, 2024. The project aimed to desilt and extract materials from the riverbed to improve water flow and help mitigate the province’s worsening water shortage during the height of the El Niño phenomenon.

Garcia maintained from the beginning that the action was taken as part of an urgent response to the crisis being faced by Cebu residents.

In a detailed 25-page resolution, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no probable cause to charge Garcia and Shalom Construction representative Anthony James Limchesing for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

While the decision acknowledged that Garcia failed to ensure strict adherence to environmental regulations—specifically the lack of an ECC—it emphasized the absence of malicious intent, financial gain, or undue injury.

The resolution determined that her actions were carried out “in good faith,” given the urgent need to address Cebu’s water scarcity, and were not driven by corruption or favoritism.

Before the criminal case was resolved, the Ombudsman earlier ruled that Garcia was administratively liable for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On April 29, 2025, the former governor was slapped with a six-month preventive suspension over allegations of grave abuse of authority and gross misconduct.

However, the suspension was never implemented because Garcia sought guidance from the Department of the Interior and Local Government and later secured a 60-day temporary restraining order from the Court of Appeals’ Special 17th Division.

After Garcia’s term ended on June 30, 2025, the administrative penalty of suspension was converted into a fine equivalent to six months of her salary. Garcia appealed, citing the “doctrine of necessity,” asserting that her decisions were driven by urgency to secure water access for the public.

The Ombudsman denied her appeal on September 23, saying the accusations lacked sufficient legal and factual basis, but reiterated that the matter did not involve corrupt motive.

Following the dismissal, Garcia issued a statement on Wednesday, October 22, expressing relief and gratitude over the decision.

“Deiparine was merely a hapless pawn used by more powerful forces obsessed with politically harming me,” she said. “Now he will have to face the consequences of his misdeed. Truth and justice will always prevail.”

Garcia insisted the project was coordinated with government agencies and was a desilting operation to prevent a water supply disaster—not commercial quarrying disguised as emergency work.

She had previously criticized the administrative ruling as “misinformed,” emphasizing she acted within her legal authority as governor.

The Ombudsman’s rulings highlight an important distinction between procedural lapses and criminal intent. While Garcia was faulted for failing to meet environmental documentation requirements, the government determined that the situation did not rise to corruption.

The case ultimately reflects the challenge public officials face in emergencies: balancing rapid response with legal and environmental safeguards.