QUEZON CITY, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the preventive suspension without pay of Catanduanes Vice Governor Robert A. Fernandez and 11 members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for six months in connection with administrative complaints filed by Governor Patrick Alain T. Azanza.
In a decision dated May 22, 2026, signed by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, the suspension was issued while the administrative investigation is ongoing for alleged grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Covered by the order are Vice Gov. Robert A. Fernandez, PBMs; Josevan Balidoy, Giovanni Balmadrid, Jose Romeo Francisco, Alvin V. Rodriguez, Edwin Tanael, Lorenzo Templonuevo Jr., Arnel Turado, Dean Roberto Vergara, Tito V. Villamor, Santos V. Zafe, and Rafael C. Zuniega of the Local Government Unit of Catanduanes Province.
Two provincial board members, PBM Boboy Albaniel and PBM Fred Gianan, were not included in the suspension order as they were not among those named in the complaint filed by the governor.
The case is docketed as Azanza vs. Fernandez, et al., OMB-L-A-MAR-26-0059.
QRF Allocation Dispute After Typhoon “Uwan”
According to the Ombudsman order, the complaint stemmed from a series of alleged irregularities in provincial governance following the devastation caused by Super Typhoon “Uwan” on November 9, 2025, which reportedly damaged 39,003 houses in Catanduanes.
Governor Azanza, through the Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, reportedly proposed the utilization of ₱30,505,678.14 in Quick Response Fund (QRF) and other available funds.
The proposed allocation included:
- Rice — ₱1,250,000
- Sardines — ₱500,000
- Noodles — ₱63,200
- Coffee — ₱181,800
- Sandbags — ₱5,000
- Emergency Operations Center and hauling — ₱4,250,000
- Non-food items, construction materials, shelter assistance — ₱24,255,678.14
However, the Ombudsman noted that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan allegedly modified the proposal by removing the ₱4.25 million allocation for hauling and redirecting the remaining ₱26.25 million into cash assistance instead of goods and construction materials.
Azanza questioned the move in his veto message, citing possible violations of legal guidelines governing the use of disaster funds.
Alleged Administrative Irregularities
The complaint also cited the alleged non-confirmation of several local government department head appointments, refusal to authorize the governor to sign a Contract of Service for a legal officer position, and delays in the passage of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.
The Ombudsman order further stated that despite repeated submissions and clarifications from the governor, including reaffirmation of the proposed budget, the provincial board allegedly failed to act decisively, resulting in delays in budget approval.
It also included allegations regarding the deferment of authority for the governor to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD), which was intended to facilitate the release of construction materials for typhoon victims.
The DHSUD reportedly had already delivered and inspected materials in “good and acceptable condition,” but implementation was allegedly delayed due to the board’s recommendation for further evaluation.
Persona Non Grata Resolution
The Ombudsman likewise cited the provincial board’s Resolution No. 009-2026, which declared Governor Azanza persona non grata on January 12, 2026, allegedly due to accusations of defiance of vetoed ordinances, abuse of authority, and misconduct.
The resolution was reportedly publicized through social media platforms, including Facebook videos, and was noted in the order as potentially politically motivated.
Legal Basis of Suspension
The Ombudsman explained that the preventive suspension is authorized under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and relevant procedural rules, allowing the suspension of officials when evidence of guilt is strong, the charges involve serious misconduct, and continued service may prejudice the investigation.
Authorities emphasized that the suspension is not a finding of guilt but a precautionary measure to ensure the integrity of the investigation and preservation of evidence.
The suspension will remain in effect for up to six months unless the investigation is concluded earlier. Any delay attributable to the respondents will not be counted in the suspension period.
Legal observers noted that while Ombudsman orders are immediately executory, the respondents may still file appropriate motions for reconsideration or legal remedies.
— Via Francis Benedict | Bicol Peryodiko Integrated News
