'Concerned citizens' question PAO's eligibility to represent Vizconde

UPDATED 5:10 p.m. - "Concerned citizens" once again questioned on Monday the legal authority of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) to represent Lauro Vizconde as he appeals the Supreme Court's (SC) recent decision on his family's massacre case. The group of concerned citizens asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to look into whether the PAO may have gone beyond its duties in helping Vizconde. "We filed this complaint as concerned citizens. The PAO may have exceeded their mandate in the handling of the Vizconde case," said Cris Frondoso, spokesperson for one of the complainants, businessman Rodel Tan Davalos. "The complainants are hoping for a fair and timely investigation of PAO and for the accordance of necessary sanctions to those found in breach of their responsibilities as public officials," the complainants said in a statement. Sought for comment, PAO head Persida Rueda-Acosta told GMANews.TV that she and her office have the legal authority to represent Vizconde. She added that the PAO can represent the prosecution of a criminal case during the motion for reconsideration stage. She then said that complaint was a form of a harassment. "Harassment yan at manipulated yan (That is harassment and and that is manipulated)," Acosta said in a text message. Acosta and 11other lawyers are representing Vizconde, who is appealing the SC's recent acquittal of Hubert Webb and six other men previously convicted for the 1991 Vizconde massacre. Last week, Webb's camp asked the SC to strike out Vizconde's motion for reconsideration. Webb's lawyers said Acosta and the PAO lawyers have no legal standing to represent Vizconde because a PAO memorandum prohibits its lawyers from being part of the prosecution in a criminal case. Acosta brushed this off, saying that the memo only bars PAO lawyers from handling the prosecution of a criminal case while it is still on trial and not during the motion for reconsideration stage. Citizens' complaint On Monday, the concerned citizens cited the same Memorandum Circular, which provides that PAO lawyers "shall not handle the prosecution of criminal cases in court." They likewise questioned why PAO admitted Vizconde as its client even if he is supposedly not an indigent or a poor litigant. The PAO is tasked to represent poor litigants who cannot afford legal services. "Representation by the PAO in filing [the motion for reconsideration] is also unmeritorious as per the PAO Merit Test as it has no chance of success," said the complainants in a statement. They alleged that Vizconde is not really an indigent because he still owns his BF Homes residence in Paranaque City, where his wife, Estrellita,47, and daughters Carmela, 18, and Jennifer, 7, were killed. The complainants made the claim as Acosta had insisted that Vizconde passed the PAO's indigency test. "Vizconde is entitled to avail himself of our help. He has a certificate of indigency from his barangay. He is jobless now and we [PAO] used our income test. He is entitled, and where else will he go? Nobody wants to help him except this office," Acosta told GMANews.TV last week. They likewise accused Acosta of a possible conflict of interest in using her office's resources to represent Vizconde because she served as private counsel when the Vizconde massacre case was still on trial at the Paranaque Regional Trial Court Branch 274 from 1997 to 2000. Complainants: No ties with Webb family Frondoso, spokesperson for the lead complainant Rodel Davalos, also clarified that the Webb family has nothing to do with filing of the complaint with the DOJ. "We have not gotten anything, received any compensation, any favor from the Webb family. I've met a few of them on some occasions. I don't know Hubert Webb personally," said Frondoso. Violating the anti-graft law? The complainants also alleged that Acosta may have violated Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in giving "undue favors" to Vizconde, her distant relative. They cited Section 3 of the anti-graft law, which prohibits a public official from "giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence." They added that even Vizconde himself may be liable for violating Section 4 of the anti-graft law, which prohibits a person from seeking favors from a relative in government. "It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting... pecuniary advantage," said Section 4 of the law. – VVP, GMANews.TV