ILOILO CITY—Former Iloilo provincial administrator Manuel Mejorada, who has accused Senate President Franklin Drilon and other top officials of graft, is himself facing a graft complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman over irregularities in the purchase of a laptop computer.
In a two-page order dated Nov. 14, the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas directed Mejorada along with six other respondents to submit their respective counteraffidavits to a complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Among the six other respondents were Ramie Salcedo (property officer), Danny Baldemor (inspection officer), Rosarie San Luiz (end-user representative), Patricia Grace Trabado (acting provincial nutrition action officer) and Edgar Piansay (inspection officer and member of the bids and awards committee).
Also named respondent was Cristina Te, owner of The Seven-Seven Trading, the supplier.
The order was based on a complaint filed by the agency’s Field Investigation Office (FIO) finding “enough basis to proceed with preliminary adjudication” in relation to the purchase of a laptop computer of the provincial government costing P99,000.
Mejorada said he could not issue a comment because he had yet to receive a copy of the order and complaint.
In its complaint, the FIO cited results of the 2008 annual audit report of the Commission on Audit (COA) showing that the laptop delivered to the provincial government on Feb. 6, 2008, was not the one covered by a purchase order and was cheaper by P39,100.
The purchase order covered an Acer Aspire 5920G-302G16N costing P99,000, which was intended for the provincial health office. But what was delivered and accepted by the respondents was an Acer Travel Mate 6292-10161M1 priced at P59,900.
Electroworld Inc., the computer store where the laptop was purchased, had explained that the Acer Aspire 5920G-302G16N had already been phased out.
On Oct. 13, 2011, the supplier, The Seven-Seven Trading, which acted as a middleman, refunded the paid amount of P83,796.42, which the COA had disallowed.
The audit report also noted that there was no competitive public bidding for the purchase and had reminded the bids and awards committee to stop the practice of accepting middlemen in the procurement of items.
The FIO said in its complaint that the respondents were liable of impartiality, bad faith or “gross inexcusable negligence” when they accepted the item, which was different from the one covered by the purchase order.
It said the transaction gave the supplier “unwarranted preference, benefits or advantage at the expense of the government.”