Vizcaya gov, 13 execs sued over purchase of 12 SUVs
BAYOMBONG, Philippines—Governor Ruth Padilla and other top provincial officials are facing graft charges over the alleged anomalous purchase of 12 sport utility vehicles (SUVs) worth P18 million in what complainants described as “thoughtless extravagance.”
In a taxpayer suit filed in the Office of the Ombudsman on Monday, four complainants assailed Padilla, Vice Gov. Epifanio Galima Jr. and the 12 members of the provincial board for pushing through with the SUV purchases just two months after terminating and demoting about 180 permanent employees for alleged lack of funds.
“The funds that were supposed to be paid to illegally terminated employees as their salaries and wages were used by [the officials in purchasing the SUVs, and this is] crystalline proof of [their] callousness and insensitivity,” the 10-page complaint read.
The complainants were radio commentator Edgar Bartolome, a resident of Bagabag town; Emmanuel Minia, one of the dismissed employees and a resident of Bambang town; Alfonso Shog-oy, a barangay council member in Aritao town, and Fernando Villoso, a farmer from Bambang.
The Inquirer on Monday tried but failed to reach Padilla through provincial administrator Maybelle Blossom Sevillena, who did not respond to messages sent to her mobile phone.
One per board member
Documents showed that the board bought 12 units of Toyota Fortuner—one for each of the 12 board members—from a dealership in Quezon City. The first four units were delivered late last month.
All 12 vehicles were expected to be delivered by June 15, according to Galima’s letter that sought their inspection by the provincial government’s motorpool division.
Galima said he and the other officials had yet to be informed of the charges filed against them. “What I know is that the purchase of the vehicles is aboveboard, legal and necessary in the pursuit of the demands of public service,” he said.
The purchases are covered by a P25.1-million appropriation ordinance, which the board enacted on Aug. 27, 2013, and was approved by Padilla the next day.
This came more than a month after the board, on July 15, slashed from the province’s 2013 budget the fund for the salaries of about 180 permanent employees whose appointments and promotions were revoked by Padilla on July 1.
The employees were then forced out of work due to the refusal of the provincial government to pay their salaries, citing lack of funds.
Of the P25.1 million, about P19.5 million was allocated for the purchase of vehicles while the remaining amount was for “other expense accounts,” which included laptops, mobile phones, digital cameras, computer tablets, pocket Wi-Fi and portable battery packs for the board members.
Residents have been criticizing the officials for the purchase of the SUVs and urged them to instead use the funds for the more pressing needs, such as farm-to-market roads, basic health services or salaries of teachers.
The complainants said the officials also violated an administrative order that prohibits local officials from buying “luxury” vehicles, or those that cost more than P1.3 million each.
“It is without a doubt that with respect to provinces, the elective officials allowed to use service vehicles are the governors and vice governors. There is no provision, whatsoever, [on] members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan being accorded the same privilege,” the complaint said.
Personal choice
The board members had earlier planned to buy SUVs of their personal choice, which included units of Toyota Fortuner, Mitsubishi Montero, Nissan Navara and Isuzu D-Max.
Two subsequent biddings, however, had failed, prompting the provincial government to resort to soliciting quotations from dealers as an “alternative mode.”
The board members also agreed to stick to just one vehicle type, the Toyota Fortuner.
Bartolome said they were emboldened to file the charges after seeing photographs from concerned citizens that showed that some of the new SUVs were being used by board members for their personal trips, such as dining in restaurants with their families or attending weddings and other social gatherings.
In their petition, the complainants sought the preventive dismissal of the 14 officials because their “continued stay in office may prejudice a just, fair and independent disposition of the case against them.”
