Order undermines BOC reforms, says Purisima. The Department of Finance (DOF) questions the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by Manila Regional Trial Court that prevents the implementation of Customs Personnel Order (CPO) No. B-189-2013.
The latter directs 27 collectors of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to be transferred the newly-created Customs Policy Research Office (CPRO) under the DOF.
On Tuesday, Manila RTC Branch 22 released a 72-hour stay order against the implementation of CPO No. B-189-2013. The order was signed by Judge Marino Dela Cruz, Jr. The petition was filed by 15 of the 27 BOC officials covered by the CPO. Among the petitioners for the TRO are Port of Cebu Collector Edward Dela Cuesta, Port of Manila Collector Rogel Gatchalian, and NAIA Collector Carlos So.
Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima expressed dismay over the court order, saying that it runs counter to President Aquino’s directive to reform the Bureau.
“Reform at the BOC is an absolute necessity directed by President Aquino himself. The implementation of this order is crucial not just to restoring trust in the BOC but to stamp out smugglers once and for all,” Purisima said.
“TROs like this tie government’s hands and serve the malicious interests he is campaigning against.”
Last Thursday, Customs Commissioner Rozzano Rufino Biazon issued CPO No. B-189-2013, transferring 27 officials of the BOC to the CPRO. At least twelve of the affected officials have since reported to the DOF and have begun working at the CPRO.
Collectors ‘most qualified’ to form CPRO
Purisima questioned the petitioners’ intent for filing the TRO, dismissing allegations that their transfer to CPRO was tantamount to a demotion and dismissal.
“The CPRO is a legitimate office created with the purpose of ensuring that the BOC is aligned with the international standards on customs administration. These collectors, by their own admission of seniority and rank, are in fact the most qualified to reach this objective. They are all experts in customs procedures, policies and global trade practices. They have the experience and received government-sponsored training to identify and correct weaknesses in customs operations. It is not a ghost office. Furthermore, these officials are still employees. There is no change in their tenure, salary or benefits,” Purisima said.
The Finance chief also noted that operations at all ports of the BOC have normalized, following the initial reaction from recent revamps.
“The collectors insisting on keeping their respective ports will only disrupt operations that have already achieved normalcy. Even assuming that the TRO prevents the assumption of the collectors of their posts in the CPRO, they cannot go back to their ports now as this will be in violation of the COMELEC election ban on appointments.”
‘Come to clarity’
Meanwhile, a different branch of the Manila RTC denied a petition for TRO on a separate CPO that ordered the return of all Bureau of Customs personnel to their permanent plantilla positions and mother units.
In a five-page order dated September 27, 2013, Manila RTC Branch 39 Judge Noli Diaz dismissed the petition for TRO for lack of merit. The petition was filed by BOCEA National President Romulo Pagulayan.
Purisima, while welcoming of Branch 39’s resolution, urged the courts to commit to clarity in their decisions.
“I urge the courts to come to clarity on these crucial administrative reforms. Our courts must support the fight for good governance, not frustrate and hamper it,” Purisima said.
CPO B-134-2013 ordered the return of all BOC personnel detailed to various posts to the original units described in their appointments. Based on BOCEA’s petition, the order will affect up to 2,000 BOC Personnel. But in its decision, the court ruled that BOC employees had no right to cling to their positions.
The court ruled, “Considering that the Head of the Bureau of Customs, with the conformity of the Secretary of the Department of Finance, only wanted to return the affected BOC employees to their original plantilla positions/mother units to further improve the efficiency of its operations, the said BOC employees have no right to cling to their present positions because that is not their original position in the first place. Considering further that their designations are merely temporary in nature, the affected BOC employees’ present designations can be subject to revocation and re-assignment anytime as the head of the agency deems fit.”
