Binays face graft indictment

By: Nancy C. Carvajal - 10 years ago

Vice President Jejomar Binay (left), his son Makati Mayor Junjun Binay (right) and 23 others face plunder case over the alleged “unconscionable overpricing” in the construction of an 11-story parking building (inset) that the city government supposedly built for P1.56 billion. INQUIRER FILE PHOTOS

A special panel of investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman has found probable cause to indict Vice President Jejomar Binay, his son Makati Mayor Junjun Binay, and 22 others, including the owner of building contractor Hilmarc’s Corp. for various criminal offenses in connection with the allegedly overpriced P2.2-billion Makati parking building.

“[The] Makati parking building is a clear instance of diversion of people’s money and putting it in the hands of private contractors,” the special panel said in its findings in their investigation into the alleged irregularities in the design and construction of the Makati City Hall Building II, the official name of the parking building.

“There is probable cause to indict the Vice President, his son and other respondents for the crimes and offenses charged in the complaint filed on March 5, 2015,” the panel said in their findings dated May 4.

The findings were contained in the panel’s consolidated reply to the counteraffidavits of the respondents.

14 offenses

According to the panel, the Vice President committed 14 offenses while he was the mayor of Makati in connection with the construction of the parking building and his son, the incumbent mayor, 15 offenses.

It enumerated the Vice President’s specific participation as the following: In 2007, he approved the request to enter into a negotiated procurement instead of the regular bidding of the building’s architectural design; signed the bids and awards committee (BAC) resolution and contract also in 2007 awarding the architectural and engineering services contract to Mana (MANA Architecture and Interior Design Co.); and approved the disbursement vouchers for the contract.

It said the senior Binay also signed the BAC resolutions, awards of contracts, program of work and cost estimates, and approved the release of the money for Phases 1 and 2 of the parking building during his term as mayor of Makati.

P2.2B worth of public funds

“With the foregoing acts, respondents public officials cannot deny knowledge of and participation in the procurement of the design and the construction and release of public funds amounting to more than P2.2 billion for the Makati parking building which is tainted with irregularities,” the panel said.

“The individual participation of respondents is clear. Each of them contributed in the processes leading to the release of more than P2.2 billion worth of public funds despite the irregularities,” it said.

The panel said it was reiterating the criminal and administrative charges in the complaint it filed in the Office of the Ombudsman last March 5 against former and present public officials of Makati City and private contractors, Orlando M. Mateo of Mana and Efren M. Canlas of Hilmarc’s.

In the March 5 complaint, the panel had recommended the suspension of the younger Binay. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales ordered the six-month preventive suspension of the Makati mayor and 21 other City Hall officials, but the Court of Appeals granted the mayor a 60-day reprieve.

The panel also accused the Binays and the other respondents of malversation, falsification and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Government Procurement Reform Act.

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.