His critics say evidence not heard

“We were not heard.”

Critics of former Labor Attaché Manuel Roldan scored the ruling of Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz which found him liable only for simple misconduct.

Adrielle Panares, a leader of the Coalition of Service Providers for Ethnic Minorities in Hong Kong (CSPEM), confronted Baldoz as to why she made a ruling even when the coalition had yet to formally present its evidence.

“Bakit naman ho kayo nagdesisyon na ang complainant ninyo hindi niyo tinanong?” Panares pointedly asked Baldoz during a tense community meeting at the Philippine Consulate General on August 7.

Panares said CSPEM, which filed the complaint against Roldan, was waiting for an invitation from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) so that they could present their evidence.

But Baldoz said she thought that the Philippine Consulate General had already heard CSPEM’s evidence when it conducted an investigation into the allegations against Roldan.

The labor secretary also countered that it was DOLE officials who were not given a proper hearing during the consulate’s inquiry.

“Pero sa report po ng congen nabigyan po kayo ng pagkakataon,” Baldoz told Panares.

“Ang hindi po nabigyan yung mga tao namin kaya doon po nasentro yung ginawa pong investigation,” she added.

Consul General Bernardita Catalla, who was sitting just beside Baldoz, was seen shaking her head from side to side as the labor chief spoke.

Baldoz further noted that the consulate’s investigation report had “findings” and “recommendations on what cases to file.”

“We thought na everything as far as your side is concerned were well taken cared of,” Baldoz told the complainants.

“Parang po ang lumalabas ang nagcocomplain po sa amin yung congen. (Kinocomplain) yung akin pong mga tao,” Baldoz said.

But Panares said the consulate did not summon them during its inquiry.

“Dun sa investigation report ng konsulado wala hong nakalagay na ininterview kami,” she said.

Catalla agreed, saying that the report was only an initial report and meant to be “documentary.”

“So, obvious po sa investigation report na sinasabi niyo na wala kaming participation sa imbestigasyon dahil hawak pa namin ang ebidensiya namin,” Panares said.

She said CSPEM approached Catalla because the Philippine Overseas Labor Office at that time was headed by Roldan and he did not have an assistant attaché.

“Dumulog kami kay congen kasi wala kayong ALA nuon. Blangko ho ang posisyon. Ang naghahawak ng labor yung nirereklamo namin,” Panares said.

“Pano naman ho namin isusubmit sa kanya (Roldan) ang reklamo namin? Kaya ho kami dumaan kay congen,” she added.

Baldoz had said that the “normal thing” to do when there are complaints against labor officials was to “forward” the complaint to DOLE in Manila so that it could undertake “all the necessary investigation.”

“So, kung nagkaroon ng parang ganung investigation (sa konsulado) yun po ang parang pinagbasehan namin to have our own and to file the necessary complaint,” Baldoz said.

But Catalla defended her decision to conduct an initial inquiry into the allegations against Roldan.

“Gusto ko lang iclarify, yung sulat na yun (galing CSPEM) naka-address sa akin so I thought, as head of this office, I should do something bago ko iturn over sa inyo,” Catalla said.

“Ang ginawa lang ho namin…was an initial investigation, based only on documentary evidence at wala na pong iba.  Kaya ang sabi namin ituturn over namin at mula nun hindi na kami nagtanong kasi alam ko na yung kaso na yun involves a person who is with (DOLE),” she said.

“Except na at the time na nangyari yun, nandito ho siya at ako ang head and I thought that it was my obligation and responsibility to do something,” she added.

Baldoz said the complainants could still file a motion for reconsideration if they did not agree with her ruling.

“Kung sa tingin po ninyo at merong kayong kailangang iraise, nothing should prevent you from asking kung ano man po yung nakikita ninyong hindi ho tama (sa decision),” Baldoz said.

“The decision is not yet final. Kung meron po kayong evidence na hindi nasama duon at tingin ninyo napaka-material at kailangan po iparating sa amin, pwede nyo pong isulat sa amin,” she said.

“As I said, nothing is final. As a matter of fact, kung magkaroon ako ng decision (sa motion for reconsideration), hindi pa rin ho final yun at appealable pa yun sa Civil Service Commission. As long as di final, that is subject for review.”