
DISMISSED Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo will remain in the custody of the Philippine National Police (PNP) until the legal issues surrounding the graft case filed against her are resolved, according to Senator Risa Hontiveros, chair of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, on Monday.
Hontiveros stated that the committee will write to the presiding judge of the Tarlac Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Office of the Ombudsman to clarify the jurisdiction of the court that issued the judicial warrant for Guo’s arrest.
“Until we get some quick answers from those two good bodies to guide us otherwise, Ms. Alice will remain in PNP custody…until this legal issue is decided, we will respect the Judiciary,” Hontiveros said.
The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms will coordinate with the PNP for Guo’s possible turnover to the Senate “if she posts bail, or once there is a final determination on the issue of jurisdiction on the court which issued the judicial warrant.”
The decision to retain Guo in PNP custody came after Hontiveros declined a motion by Senate Majority Leader Francis Tolentino, who argued that the Senate should take custody of Guo.
Tolentino cited Republic Act 10660, which specifies the venue for filing cases against municipal mayors.
“RA 10660 speaks of a venue wherein a municipal mayor here is concerned. Once the Ombudsman files a case, it has to be outside, even though she was dismissed, the judicial region where she holds office. She holds office in Tarlac…and yet, where was the case filed? Capas, Tarlac belongs to the same judicial region,” Tolentino said.
“In effect, it is a violation of RA 10660,” he added.
Tolentino also cited a circular issued by the Office of the Court Administrator, which he quoted as stating “all the cases related to [RA] 10660 should be filed in the next judicial region.”
The legal dispute surrounding the jurisdiction of the court and the proper venue for filing the graft case against Guo remains unresolved. The Senate will continue to monitor the situation and will take further action based on the responses from the presiding judge and the Office of the Ombudsman.