Graft charges filed against wrong people
Do you remember the grossly overpriced lampposts in Cebu in 2007? Graft charges were filed for the overpricing and, after investigation, the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan charges against several Cebu officials.
But what kind of investigation was done? Obviously it was sloppy. The charges were filed against the wrong people.
The lampposts were bought and installed to impress delegates to the 2007 Asean Summit in Cebu. The lampposts project was a project of the national government, specifically the Department of Public Works and Highways, not of the Cebu provincial government.
The Cebu government did not pay for the project. In fact, because of the uproar, the contractor has not been paid until now. The sole participation of the local government was as project beneficiary and the party that prepared the Program of Works and Estimates (Powe) for budget allocation. So why were the Cebu officials charged and not the DPWH officials? Something is wrong here.
Since day one, the local officials insisted they did not directly participate in whatever contracts the DPWH entered into for the installation of the lampposts. The Ombudsman nevertheless filed graft charges against them but not against officials of the DPWH then headed by Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. The investigation was started during the time of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. Both Gutierrez and Ebdane were favorites of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In their defense, the Cebu officials stated the following:
• The Cebu provincial government only prepared the Powe and only for budget allocation. The discretion to approve or not the procurement of the lampposts rested solely with the DPWH Bids and Awards Committee, Region 7.
• The LGU was not the source of funds for the project. The DPWH sourced it from the Motor Vehicles Users’ Fund as indicated in a memorandum of then Secretary Ebdane to Road Board Executive Director Rodolfo Puno. The contractor, however, has not been paid until now because then Ombudsman Gutierrez issued a stop-payment order.
• The local officials did not sign a memorandum of agreement with the DPWH Region 7 for the implementation of the project.
• The local officials did not participate in the preparation of the Approved Budget Contract.
• The local officials charged were not party to the pre-bid conference, pre-qualification bids, the actual bidding, awarding of the project to the winning bidder, the contract signing, implementation and inspection of the project.
• The LGU has not accepted the project and did not pay for it.
From these accounts, it appears that indeed the LGU’s only participation is as a beneficiary of the DPWH project to beautify its city for the Asean Summit. Everything points to the DPWH. Yet DPWH officials were not included in the charges. Why?
The May 4, 2009 Supplemental Resolution of the Ombudsman Visayas, as approved by Ombudsman Gutierrez, reiterates the investigation into the alleged involvement of the DPWH central office headed by Ebdane in relation to the alternative methods of procurement used by the DPWH. Until the filing of the cases with the Sandiganbayan, nothing came out of that investigation.
This is one of the issues left unanswered by the former ombudsman. Doesn’t this require a new investigation by the present ombudsman?
* * *
Here is another case where the administration of justice may be derailed.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken over the investigation and resolution of a syndicated estafa case still being investigated by the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office. The complainants, two Mandaluyong City-based companies, are questioning the motive of the DOJ.
Earlier, a complaint was filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against two executives of Omico Corporation, Tommy Kin Hing Tia and Juana Lourdes Buyson, for obstruction of justice. The NBI filed the complaint against Tia and Buyson for their alleged failure to obey the legal process in connection with the syndicated estafa complaint filed last year by Guevent Investments Development Corp. (GIDC) and Honeycomb Builders Inc. (HBI) against Tia, Buyson and other Omico executives.
A little background: On Sept. 26, 1995, a joint-venture agreement was entered into by GIDC and HBI, on the one hand, and Omico on the other, to develop parcels of real estate owned by GIDC and HBI along Pasong Tamo Extension in Makati. Omico was to construct the condominiums.
Omico raised, through a public offering, P250 million to be used exclusively to develop the mixed-use condos. However, the amount was instead diverted to other projects and can no longer be accounted for. The amount went to Omico Kapital Inc., a subsidiary firm, only to be loaned back to Omico without interest.
It is not only the two partners asking where the money went but also the thousands of small investors who bought shares in Omico’s public offering. A publicly listed corporation, Omico’s board chair is Antonio Lopa, a relative of President Aquino.
Alberto Gaviola, legal counsel of GIDC and HBI, said in a letter to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima that the NBI investigation was going smoothly before the Aquino administration took over. After the Aquino takeover, however, Omico executives began snubbing subpoenas issued by the NBI.
The case was filed on Nov. 22, 2010, by the NBI with the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office but, curiously, was docketed with the Guevaras of Guevent as complainants. Gaviola told the investigating fiscal, Nestle A. Go, that the complainant was the NBI, not the Guevaras.
Gaviola said the DOJ takeover was improper. It is only after the resolution of a case by the prosecutor that the DOJ may take over a case for resolution, he said.
