Ombudsman suspends DICT Usec Almirol over alleged eGov conflicts of interest

The Ombudsman ordered DICT Undersecretary David Almirol Jr. placed on preventive suspension for six months without pay. The action concerns alleged conflicts of interest connected to government contracts worth about P1.55 billion. It matters because senior officials must avoid using public authority in ways that could benefit former businesses or related companies.

The complaints followed a June 2025 DICT internal audit. It flagged the hiring of former Multisys personnel and contracts awarded to related companies. Almirol founded and formerly led Multisys. The Ombudsman said at least eight DICT contracts went to companies with financial relationships with Multisys.

The allegations include Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and violating Republic Act No. 6713. The suspension is immediately executory and will continue while administrative complaints are resolved. It is a temporary measure, not a final ruling on liability.

Preventive suspension is a temporary safeguard used while an administrative case is still being investigated or decided. It is meant to keep proceedings impartial and unimpeded. It does not itself establish that the official committed the alleged violations. In this case, the Ombudsman ordered six months without pay.

The key mechanism is separation from official duties. Removing the respondent can reduce the risk that official authority, records, or workplace access will interfere with investigators. The Ombudsman specifically cited Almirol’s control and custody of documents and evidence relevant to the case.

The order is immediately executory and remains effective until administrative adjudication is completed. That means the investigation and case resolution continue during the suspension. The source does not state the final outcome, so the allegations remain unresolved in the reported account.

The Ombudsman identified at least eight DICT contracts involving companies with financial relationships with Multisys. Their approximate combined value was P1.55 billion. This scale matters because the alleged conflict was not tied to one isolated purchase, but to a group of public contracts across several technology services.

The contracts covered ICT consultancies, e-government application deployment, web-based messaging services, cloud infrastructure, data center colocation, and software subscriptions. The Ombudsman connected these awards to companies that had financial relationships with Multisys, which Almirol founded.

The reported figure describes the contracts identified during the investigation. It does not represent a final finding that the awards were unlawful or that Almirol personally benefited. The administrative complaints still had to be resolved, while the preventive suspension protected the investigation from possible interference.

The potential conflicts centered on links between DICT decisions and Almirol’s former private business. The internal audit warned that a conflict of interest may arise when DICT hires former Multisys personnel or awards contracts to ePLDT. The Ombudsman also identified other companies with financial relationships with Multisys.

Multisys was founded by Almirol, who formerly served as its chief executive officer. The Ombudsman said at least eight DICT contracts went to companies financially related to Multisys. Multisys’ audited statements recorded managed-services revenue from related companies of P110.8 million in 2023 and P514.6 million in 2024.

These connections raised questions about whether official decisions could overlap with prior business interests. Almirol disputed the audit’s findings and said other similarly sized providers, including Globe and Converge, had received comparable contracts. The reported administrative complaints had not yet been finally resolved.

Investigations can be weakened if a respondent remains in a position to access records, influence processes, or control evidence. The Ombudsman therefore viewed Almirol’s continued stay in office as a possible threat to an impartial and unimpeded inquiry. This concern supported the preventive suspension.

The order specifically referred to Almirol’s control and custody of documents and evidence relevant to the case. Suspending him temporarily separates him from his official role while investigators examine the alleged contracts, personnel appointments, business relationships, and ownership records.

The suspension does not decide whether the allegations are true. It is a protective step while administrative adjudication proceeds. The order is immediately executory and lasts until that process is completed. The source does not report any finding that Almirol actually altered or destroyed evidence.

A public official should identify and disclose business interests before taking part in related government decisions. The official should also recuse themselves from evaluations, approvals, or contract awards involving former companies, business partners, or close financial ties. These steps create a clear boundary between public duty and private interest.

Divestment is another safeguard. The source notes conflicting filings about whether Almirol divested from Multisys within the required 60-day period after assuming office. An official could transfer or sell relevant holdings, follow applicable disclosure rules, and keep written records of recusals and handoffs. Independent review can further reduce personal influence.

These are general public-integrity measures, not findings about what Almirol should legally do beyond the facts reported. The source does not list a complete compliance plan. Any steps would need to follow the governing law, agency rules, and official ethics procedures.

Conflict-of-interest rules require officials to identify private relationships that could affect—or appear to affect—public decisions. Procurement safeguards then set fair procedures for competition, evaluation, approval, documentation, and review. Their shared purpose is to focus spending on public value rather than an official’s private interests.

For example, an official linked to a technology company should disclose the connection and avoid participating in that company’s contract process. Independent evaluators can compare qualified providers using stated criteria. Written records, financial disclosures, audits, and review by another authority make the decision easier to examine and challenge.

The DICT audit illustrates why these safeguards matter. It flagged former Multisys personnel and contracts involving ePLDT and other financially related companies. The Ombudsman identified at least eight contracts worth about P1.55 billion. The case shows how disclosure, recusal, independent review, and transparent records can protect trust while allegations are investigated.