Binays face graft indictment
List of irregularities
Among the irregularities cited in the construction of the parking building were: The lack of the required public bidding for the architectural and design services; insufficiency of the documentary requirements prior to the release of the payment for the architectural and design services; lack of required publication of the notice to bid for Phases 1 to 4 of the construction; falsification of the required documentation of the publication; lack of required detailed engineering or the plans and specifications prior to the bidding for and the construction of the building; falsification of the bid documents for Phase 1 and lack of required appropriation prior to the bidding for Phase 3.
“The public officials responsible for such illegal transactions and the private contractors who conspired with them should therefore be held accountable,” said the panel, which also acts as the nominal complainant.
The panel also disputed the elder Binay’s claim that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate him because as an impeachable official he is excluded from the disciplinary authority of the OMB.
“Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6770 limits only the disciplinary authority, but it does not restrict the OMB investigatory jurisdiction under the 1987 Constitution [which] is plenary and all-encompassing,” the panel said.
Corruption denied
The panel said that the respondents in their counteraffidavits did not deny their signatures on the documents, but denied knowledge of a corruption scheme.
But the contracts for the construction and architectural services would not have been awarded to Hilmarc’s and Mana were it not for the participation or the signatures of the city officials, the panel noted.
“Such participation defrauded the government of more than P2.2 billion which should not have been disbursed had they been circumspect in the performance of their functions,” it said.
The investigators added that considering that each contract was worth millions of pesos in public funds, respondents should have exercised a higher degree of diligence, instead of merely relying on what was presented by their subordinates or their co-respondents.
It also said that respondents Marjorie de Veyra, legal officer Pio Kenneth Dasal, BAC secretariat heads Giovanni Condes and Manolito Uyaco, Technical Working Group chair Rodel Nayve, BAC member Ulysses Orienza, General Services Department (GSD) OIC Gerardo San Gabriel, the BAC secretariat members and the Technical Working Group cannot deny knowledge of the irregularities in the procurement procedures, especially in this case where the irregularities are as grave as lack of public bidding, lack of publication, or falsification of public documents.
Forged signatures
The panel also said that the testimonies of Alejandro Tengco, the representative of the contractor whose credentials were falsified and Geronimo S. Montalban and Lyne Alano-Abanilla whose signatures were forged in the affidavits of publication should be given more weight than the general denials of the respondents.
Among the evidence submitted by the panel was the sworn statement of officials of the Balita tabloid stating that no publication was made by the Makati government to announce the bidding of the building and that their signatures in the certificates of publication were forged.
Also facing charges are former Makati government officials—budget officer Lorenza Amores, former Central Planning Management Office (CPMO) chief Virginia Hernandez; former city engineer Mario Badillo; former city accountant Leonila Querijero; former acting city accountant Raydes Pestaño; city accountant Cecilio Lim III; acting city accountant Eleno Mendoza; city treasurer Nelia Barlis; CPMO engineers Arnel Cadangan, Emerito Magat and Connie Consulta; CPMO chief Line de la Peña; GSD staff member Norman Flores; administrator De Veyra; Dasal, Condes, Uyaco, Nayve, Orienza and San Gabriel.
RELATED STORIES
Trillanes feels vindicated as Binays face graft raps
Anti-graft group stages protest vs Binays
