MANILA – The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the filing of a criminal case against former Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) administrator Arnaldo A. “Arnell” Ignacio for alleged usurpation of official functions in connection with the agency’s ₱1.4-billion property acquisition.

Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) Secretary Hans Leo J. Cacdac said the department received the Ombudsman’s resolution on July 7. The resolution, dated June 19, found probable cause to charge Ignacio with usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.

According to Cacdac, the Ombudsman found that Ignacio signed the contract to sell, deed of absolute sale, and its addendum, and later authorized the release of public funds without approval from the OWWA Board of Trustees.

“The finding of the Ombudsman is to charge the former administrator with usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code,” Cacdac said during a press briefing at the DMW Central Office.

The resolution stated that Ignacio acted as though he had authority from the OWWA Board despite allegedly knowing that no such authorization had been granted.

The Ombudsman also held that the absence of Board approval was not merely an administrative lapse but a failure that bypassed the oversight and transparency mechanisms required under the OWWA Charter, resulting in the performance of functions beyond the former administrator’s legal authority.

Cacdac said the offense carries a possible penalty of six months to four years of imprisonment, subject to the court’s determination. The Ombudsman also directed the filing of the corresponding Information before the appropriate court.

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman dismissed separate complaints for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, malversation of public funds, and plunder against former OWWA officials and the private sellers involved in the transaction.

Despite the dismissal, Cacdac said the DMW will file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that several pieces of evidence submitted by the department were not fully addressed in the resolution.

“What we plan to do is to file a Motion for Reconsideration because, in our view, the Resolution did not pass upon details that we submitted to the honorable Office of the Ombudsman,” Cacdac said.

“We wish for the honorable Office of the Ombudsman to review these matters,” he added.

The DMW said it would seek to further establish two elements in its motion: the alleged undue advantage granted to the seller and the alleged injury or prejudice suffered by the government.

On the issue of undue advantage, Cacdac said the transaction proceeded without the approval of the OWWA Board of Trustees.

“One is hindi dumaan sa Board. Undue haste. Minadali. Hindi dinaan sa OWWA Board,” the Secretary said.

He said bypassing the Board allowed the sale to move forward without the institutional oversight and scrutiny required for transactions involving OWWA funds.

The DMW also presented two Land Bank checks amounting to about ₱1.4 billion, both dated Aug. 30, 2024, while the deed of absolute sale was executed only on Sept. 12, 2024.

“There were checks issued to the seller about 12 or almost two weeks before the signing of the absolute deed of sale,” Cacdac said.

He likewise showed a receipt indicating that the seller acknowledged receiving payment on Sept. 11, 2024, a day before the deed of absolute sale was signed.

“Natanggap na ng seller yung bayad bago pa nagpirmahan ng deed of sale. We wish for the honorable Office of the Ombudsman to take a second look at this item,” Cacdac said.

Regarding the alleged prejudice to the government, Cacdac pointed to 51 condominium units valued at around ₱97 million that were included in the ₱1.4-billion acquisition.

He said the condominium titles were transferred to the Republic of the Philippines through OWWA, but an inspection by the current administration found that the structures were no longer standing. Photographs presented by the DMW showed a cleared site and heavy equipment, suggesting the buildings had already been demolished.

“The point here is the government paid for condominium units that no longer exist. That is the damage. That is the prejudicial part to the government,” Cacdac said.

He added that the department would ask the Ombudsman to determine why the condominium units remained part of the purchase price and why they were reportedly demolished without approval from the OWWA Board.

The property was originally intended to serve as a halfway house for overseas Filipino workers, Cacdac noted, adding that the condominium units could have been used for that purpose.

“Bakit giniba? Bakit nawala? Bakit binayaran na biglang nawala?” Cacdac asked.

The DMW said it would also seek a review of what it described as an estimated ₱198 million overpricing resulting from the inclusion of the demolished condominium units in the transaction.

Cacdac said the department is obligated to pursue all available legal remedies to protect public funds and ensure accountability, particularly because the Commission on Audit may later require OWWA to account for the missing condominium units.

“When the COA comes across the 51 titles of the condominium units, the first thing COA will ask is, ‘Nasaan na ho ba ito ngayon? Pwede ba ho itong puntahan?’” he said.

Cacdac emphasized that the filing of the motion for reconsideration is not directed against any individual but is part of the department’s mandate to safeguard government resources.

“This is nothing personal to any of the parties. We are duty-bound to file this Motion for Reconsideration,” he said.

He also reiterated the department’s respect for the constitutional authority of the Office of the Ombudsman and said it would abide by the agency’s final ruling.

“But first things first, we need to bring this before him because we will be faulted if we do not sound the alarm or shine a light on this particular transaction,” Cacdac said.