So much for his big speech. This lady was as dirty as the day is long.
The Office of the Public Prosecutor dismissed a complaint against the Attorney General of the Nation, Kenya Porcell, filed by a former Public Ministry (MP) official for alleged abuse of authority and violation of the duties of public servants.
The case begins when Flor María Polo Escobar – who worked in the MP from November 11, 2009 until March 2, 2019 – alleged that Porcell violated his rights by ignoring the salary ladder of psychologists at the service of the State.
The lawyer Eduardo Lamphrey, on behalf of Polo Escobar, argued before the attorney Rigoberto Gonzálezthat when his representative began working in the MP he was assigned a salary of $ 500, with the promise that in the following three months he would be paid the “correct salary” retroactively, as provided by Law 55 of December 3 2002 (salary ranking of psychologists at the service of the State). Under that rule, a category one psychologist (less than three years of service) must earn $ 700. He also argued that Polo Escobar requested transfer to the Human Resources department of the institution in Panama Oeste, but his papers were lost, and that he was denied a salary license that he requested due to the “constant exhaustion and wear and tear” he had for his work in the Victims Unit. He said that in February 2018, at which time his defendant was on vacation, he received a call from Porcell to attend his office.
González concluded that the facts reported do not constitute crimes in the light of the Criminal Code and that the legislation provides other administrative instances that may be exhausted. He argued that the complaint makes no mention that he had gone to the corresponding jurisdiction, based on the career law of the institution to which Polo Escobar belonged. That rule, according to González, establishes the procedures for performance evaluation, promotions, recognitions, licenses, duties, rights and prohibitions of public servants. “In our criminal system, criminal action should be used in cases of relevant conduct that involve intolerable attacks on the protected judicial assets,” he said.