| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
MOP, Bk 6, v.5, 255
[ ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 191, September 05, 1952 ]
REMOVING MR. ASAAD USMAN FROM OFFICE AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF SIASI AND TAPUL, SULU
Justice of the Peace Asaad Usman of Siasi and Tapul,Sulu, is charged with extortion, terrorism, land grabbing illegal collection of rentals and immorality. During the investigation, however, the complainant, Indasan Napii, confined hisevidence to the charges of extortion and illegal collection ofrentals. Of these two charges, the Secretary of Justice foundonly that of extortion to have been fully substantiated.
Several persons took the witness stand and testified onrespondent’s alleged extortion activities, but of the many illegal exactions supposedly perpetrated by the respondent,the Secretary of Justice found only three as sufficiently proved, to wit:
(1) Sometime in 1947 Hatib Usman, a contact man of the respondent, approached one Maharajah Ajan in the municipal district of Siasi, Sulu, and told him that there was a pendingcriminal complaint against him in respondent’s court for a certain offense allegedly committed by him during: the occupation. Ajan countered that it was probably a frame-up. Whereupon Hatib told Ajan not to worry because if he would give respondent ?50 the complaint would be dropped. When Ajan told Hatib that he did not have the means, the latter remarked that he had better think it over carefully because ifhe did not produce the necessary amount he would be sent tojail. Ajan had no other recourse than to look for money. It was from one LeonardoDimerin, a former school teacher, that he was able to secure a loan of ?50. Ajan then delivered the amount of Hatib, after which they proceed to respondent’s house. Ajan categorically stated having actually seen Hatib hand over the said amount to respondent. Dimerin confirmed that Ajan had borrowed ?50 from him.
(2) Another victim of respondent was a Mohammedan priest named Hatib Abdulgani Malik. It appears that one day Malik went to respondent’s court in Siasi to file a complaint against Moro Jayari Adin because of the latter’s alleged refusal to deliver to him his share of the coconuts harvested from his land by Adin. Respondent told Malik to pay ?25 for the complaint which the latter immediately paid to the former who added that his case was not of a very serious nature, otherwise the fee would have been more. After receiving the money, for which official receipt was issued, the respondent told Malik to go home and not to worry about the case, as he would call for the accused Adin. However, despite repeated requests from Malik for positive action against the accused, respondent failed to take any action on the complaint.
(3) It has likewise been established that sometime in 1948 herein complainant Napili was arrested by a group of constabulary soldiers somewhere in Sulu and brought before the respondent who ordered him to proceed with the soldiers to Tapul (part of respondents circuit) to answer a charge pending against him for acrime supposedly committed by him during theoccupation. In the investigation of the case only one witness testified against Napii. After the investigation, respondent and Napii went for a walk along the seashore in the course of which respondent required Napii to give him ?50 which the latter gave right then and there. Upon receiving the money, respondent directed Napii to see Lieutenant Nuega and tell him that respondent had set him (Napii) free. After verifying the truth of respondent’s order, the lieutenant immediately ordered Napii’s release. According to Lieutenant Nuega, he was informed by Napii that the latter had paid respondent ?50 as consideration of his release.
The records of the Department of Justice show that for the last several year there has never been a time that there is no administrative complaint pending against the respondent. In fact right now there are still several charges against him pending investigation. It also appears that in 1949 respondent was, in another administrative case, recommended for dismissal from the service by the District Judge of Sulu but, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice then, he was given by me the benefit of the doubt and exonerated, with an admonition, however, to be more careful in the discharge of his duties in the future. Said case had apparently no deterrent effect upon him as shown by the fact that complaint after complaint has since then continued to be filed against him.
In view of the foregoing, the Secretary of Justice recommends respondent’s removal for the good of the service. After going over the records of the case, I finally concur in the Secretary’s findings and recommendations.
Wherefore, Mr. Asaad Usman is hereby removed from office as justice of the peace of Siasi and Tapul, Sulu, effective upon receipt of notice hereof.
Done in the City of Manila, this 5th day of September, the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the seventh.
By the President:
(Sgd.) MARCIANO ROQUE
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary
Several persons took the witness stand and testified onrespondent’s alleged extortion activities, but of the many illegal exactions supposedly perpetrated by the respondent,the Secretary of Justice found only three as sufficiently proved, to wit:
(1) Sometime in 1947 Hatib Usman, a contact man of the respondent, approached one Maharajah Ajan in the municipal district of Siasi, Sulu, and told him that there was a pendingcriminal complaint against him in respondent’s court for a certain offense allegedly committed by him during: the occupation. Ajan countered that it was probably a frame-up. Whereupon Hatib told Ajan not to worry because if he would give respondent ?50 the complaint would be dropped. When Ajan told Hatib that he did not have the means, the latter remarked that he had better think it over carefully because ifhe did not produce the necessary amount he would be sent tojail. Ajan had no other recourse than to look for money. It was from one LeonardoDimerin, a former school teacher, that he was able to secure a loan of ?50. Ajan then delivered the amount of Hatib, after which they proceed to respondent’s house. Ajan categorically stated having actually seen Hatib hand over the said amount to respondent. Dimerin confirmed that Ajan had borrowed ?50 from him.
(2) Another victim of respondent was a Mohammedan priest named Hatib Abdulgani Malik. It appears that one day Malik went to respondent’s court in Siasi to file a complaint against Moro Jayari Adin because of the latter’s alleged refusal to deliver to him his share of the coconuts harvested from his land by Adin. Respondent told Malik to pay ?25 for the complaint which the latter immediately paid to the former who added that his case was not of a very serious nature, otherwise the fee would have been more. After receiving the money, for which official receipt was issued, the respondent told Malik to go home and not to worry about the case, as he would call for the accused Adin. However, despite repeated requests from Malik for positive action against the accused, respondent failed to take any action on the complaint.
(3) It has likewise been established that sometime in 1948 herein complainant Napili was arrested by a group of constabulary soldiers somewhere in Sulu and brought before the respondent who ordered him to proceed with the soldiers to Tapul (part of respondents circuit) to answer a charge pending against him for acrime supposedly committed by him during theoccupation. In the investigation of the case only one witness testified against Napii. After the investigation, respondent and Napii went for a walk along the seashore in the course of which respondent required Napii to give him ?50 which the latter gave right then and there. Upon receiving the money, respondent directed Napii to see Lieutenant Nuega and tell him that respondent had set him (Napii) free. After verifying the truth of respondent’s order, the lieutenant immediately ordered Napii’s release. According to Lieutenant Nuega, he was informed by Napii that the latter had paid respondent ?50 as consideration of his release.
The records of the Department of Justice show that for the last several year there has never been a time that there is no administrative complaint pending against the respondent. In fact right now there are still several charges against him pending investigation. It also appears that in 1949 respondent was, in another administrative case, recommended for dismissal from the service by the District Judge of Sulu but, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice then, he was given by me the benefit of the doubt and exonerated, with an admonition, however, to be more careful in the discharge of his duties in the future. Said case had apparently no deterrent effect upon him as shown by the fact that complaint after complaint has since then continued to be filed against him.
In view of the foregoing, the Secretary of Justice recommends respondent’s removal for the good of the service. After going over the records of the case, I finally concur in the Secretary’s findings and recommendations.
Wherefore, Mr. Asaad Usman is hereby removed from office as justice of the peace of Siasi and Tapul, Sulu, effective upon receipt of notice hereof.
Done in the City of Manila, this 5th day of September, the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the seventh.
(Sgd.) ELPIDIO QUIRINO
President of the Philippines
President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) MARCIANO ROQUE
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary