Ex-DOTC chief seeks deferment, to file motion for reconsideration

Former Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s coaccused, on Monday asked the Sandiganbayan to defer proceedings in his case while he is challenging the Ombudsman’s decision to charge him with graft.

In an omnibus motion filed Monday, Mendoza asked the court to hold in abeyance the determination of probable cause and the issuance of a warrant against him, and also sought leave to file his motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman.

Mendoza said the filing of a motion for reconsideration was part of his right to due process and to exhaust all remedies available to him, “particularly in this case where his personal liberty as well as name and reputation are at stake.”

He said there were strong reasons for the Ombudsman to reverse its ruling indicting him. He said that if the Ombudsman grants his motion, the charge against him would be withdrawn, which was why the proceedings in the antigraft court should be deferred.

Mendoza also contended that he was entitled to a full preliminary investigation, and this included the resolution of the motion for reconsideration by the Ombudsman.

No case, he says

In his motion for reconsideration filed Monday before the Ombudsman, Mendoza said there was no reason to file charges against him and defended the $329-million national broadband deal with China’s ZTE Corp.

Mendoza argued that the Ombudsman was barred from filing a case against him for the NBN-ZTE deal because it earlier already dismissed for lack of probable cause a complaint against him stemming from the same project.

He also said the NBN-ZTE deal was not manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, that the Office of the Ombudsman’s finding was based only on the statement of witnesses whom it should not have been quick to believe.

The agency had cited statements of businessman Joey de Venecia III and consultant Dante Madriaga in finding that the NBN deal with ZTE Corp. was overpriced.

He said De Venecia and Madriaga had not appeared before the Office of the Ombudsman to swear to their statements, and had presented no documents to back up their claim.

The two are also biased and interested witnesses because De Venecia’s firm was a losing bidder in the NBN project, while  there were claims that Madriaga was “reputedly a witness for hire” and had no personal knowledge of the things he talked about, he added.

Mendoza also said that the NBN deal’s price was adjusted to $329 million because of the expansion of the project’s coverage to cover almost the whole of the Philippines.

Claims that the price was jacked up to accommodate commissions had no basis, he added.

Mendoza said that the proposal from De Venecia’s Amsterdam Holdings Inc. (AHI) was not cheaper than that from ZTE, and even if it was, it was not necessarily better for the government.

He said the ZTE contract had a broader coverage compared to the AHI proposal. The AHI deal, under the build-operate-transfer scheme, would also not come free, he added. The government would be required to subscribe to AHI’s services. The ZTE deal would also save the government P2 billion annually, he said.

ZTE, China’s third largest telecommunications giant, also has a much better track record compared to AHI, a holding company with no telecommunication experience, he said. The ZTE deal also afforded greater security for government data, since the government would own and operate the network, he said.

Mendoza also said there should be no graft case against him because the NBN deal was canceled even before it could be implemented. Without any contract, there could be no violation of the antigraft law, he said.

No public money was disbursed, which means there was no injury to the government, he further said. Leila B. Salaverria