Ryan Leagogo/INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Makati City resolutions approved in 2011 supported the observations of the Commission on Audit chairperson that the Makati Parking Building or City Hall II had been ready for use by that year, before two more phases costing close to P1 billion were added to its construction, Renato Bondal, a critic of the Binay political clan, said on Thursday.
Bondal said resolutions approved in 2011, numbered 2011-190 and 2011-191, authorized Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay to sign contracts for security and janitorial services for several offices, including the “Parking Building,” for the year 2012.
Bondal is one of the complainants in the plunder case against Mayor Binay and Vice President Jejomar Binay for the alleged overprice of the P2.28 billion Makati Parking Building, which city officials said was completed in March 2013.
Bondal said the resolutions bolstered questions raised by COA chair Grace Pulido Tan, who noted that after Makati spent some P1.5 billion for phases one to three of the building, it was considered “habitable and ready for use.” Phase 3 was completed in 2011, she said.
But after this, phases four and five were added to the project, for which over P1 billion was appropriated.
The actual amount spent for phases four and five, as per a COA report issued in February, was P793.74 million.
“So by phase 3, our engineers found out that it was habitable and ready for use. How much should have been added for this? Why was one point something billion appropriated for this phase?” Tan asked during the August 26 hearing.
COA personnel who conducted the earlier inspection of the building had told the senators that phases one to three covered the construction to up to the 10th floor of the building. Another floor and a roof deck were added later, they said.
Bondal said Tan had reason to raise the issue, and said that even if one floor was added, it should not have cost close to P1 billion.
“The idea is reinforced by those two resolutions. If they say the building was turned over to it in 2013, then why would they post guards and janitors?” he said in a recent phone interview.
He also said that even if an 11th floor and roof deck were added in the later phases, he doubted that this would have cost the amount actually spent, and continued to believe phases four and five were overpriced.
One floor was only a little over 2,000 square meters, and using the P27,000 per square meter market cost of constructing a building in the area in 2012, as relayed by a property appraiser, it would not have reached close to P1 billion, he said.
He said he suspected that addition of another floor could have been done to make money. He also wondered whether the addition of another floor indicated that there was no concrete plan for the construction of the building.
“Why would (COA) say it’s habitable if it’s not yet completed? If they say they added another floor, then it’s not in accordance with the first design,” he said.
“This means they can just add another floor when they need money,” he added.
The COA is conducting a special audit on the parking building, after Tan raised red flags in the process.
RELATED STORIES
Binay: Evidence of corruption ‘hearsay’
Bondal: Cakes, other buildings also overpriced in Makati
Binay benefited from ‘overpriced’ Makati building—former ally