Graft case ordered vs ex-lawmaker
Bacolod City Mayor Monico Puentevella
BACOLOD CITY—The Ombudsman has ordered the filing of a graft case against Bacolod Mayor Monico Puentevella and two others in the Sandiganbayan for the alleged overpriced purchase of information technology (IT) packages from 2002 to 2006 that were bought using his pork barrel when he was a congressman.
The order was issued after the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Puentevella, former Department of Education (DepEd) Western Visayas Director Victorino Tirol and Merryland Publishing chair Jessie Garcia.
In its eight-page decision, the Ombudsman said it found no basis to reverse its resolution dated Sept. 30, 2013, that indicted the respondents with graft charges.
“It cannot be denied therefore that respondents acted with bad faith and manifest partiality when they circumvented the law on public bidding and directly awarded to Merryland Publishing the procurement contracts for the IT packages,” the Ombudsman said.
The decision was penned by assistant special prosecutor Ana Isabel Arellano and signed by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on Jan. 8.
Bacolod city administrator Rolando Villamor said the mayor was ready to answer the charges against him and prove his innocence.
Puentevella, Tirol and Garcia were accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for the alleged overpriced purchase of IT packages for public elementary and secondary schools in Bacolod in 2002, 2004 and 2005 using Puentevella’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) when he was congressman of Bacolod.
‘Exorbitant’
The IT package for public elementary schools, worth P400,000 each, was composed of one computer, 50 compact discs, instructional materials and one-day seminar workshop.
The package for public secondary schools, also worth P400,000, consisted of two computer units, 80 CDs, instructional materials and one-day seminar.
The Ombudsman, in a Sept. 13, 2013, resolution, cited the Commission on Audit (COA) report that said P26 million was used to buy the IT packages in 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006 for 54 public elementary schools and 29 public secondary schools.
But the COA said the purchase was “exorbitant,” according to the Ombudsman resolution.
It also said Merryland was given “unwarranted” benefit because the procurement was conducted in the absence of public bidding in violation of Executive Order No. 40 and Republic Act No. 9182.
The respondents filed a motion for consideration, denying giving unwarranted benefits and advantage to Merryland.
Exempted
Both Tirol and Garcia said the procurement was exempted from public bidding since Merryland was the sole distributor in the Philippines of an educational software developed by iT21 of Singapore.
The computer provided in the IT package was specifically developed to meet the requirements of the software and ensure its smooth operation, they claimed.
Puentevella, for his part, said he merely identified the project that would be funded by his PDAF and had no participation in the procurement of the IT packages.
In denying the motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman said Puentevella’s claim that he did not participate in the procurement was contradicted by the letter dated March 11, 2002, sent to Tirol’s office and signed by Puentevella’s chief of staff.
The letter, it said, authorized “Bethel Garcia of Merryland Publishing to transact with DepEd Region VI for the delivery, release and payment of the IT packages.”
The Ombudsman said Puentevella’s explanation that the letter was a mere follow-up on the implementation of the project didn’t hold water.
“It is highly improbable that Puentevella, who was supposed to have no connection with Merryland, and who is claiming to have had nothing to do with the procurement for Merryland, would authorize somebody from the said company to transact with the DepEd. If the contract had already been awarded to Merryland, DepEd Region 6 must have already known the authorized representative of the company,” the Ombudsman said.
The Ombudsman also said that while Garcia and Tirol claimed the IT package was indivisible, the distributorship agreement that the respondents presented and on which they anchored their claim that the procurement was exempted from public bidding only mentioned the sale of educational software.
