Ex-MRT chief Al Vitangcol seeks PAO as counsel
Al Vitangcol, former general manager of MRT3, attends a committee meeting on Good Government and Public Accountability in Congress in this file photo. LYN RILLON / PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Former Metro Rail Transit (MRT-3) General Manager Al Vitangcol III has asked the Sandiganbayan to appoint the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) to represent him in his graft case over the alleged maintenance contract mess.
In a motion before the anti-graft court Third Division, Vitangcol said he did not yet have the money to hire a competent counsel.
He said he needed at least a million pesos to hire a lawyer willing to represent him, and that his business opportunities are limited due to the hold departure order against him.
“Accused Vitangcol had preliminary talks with ‘prominent’ law firms and, on the average, required him to put up One Million Pesos cash, up front, as acceptance fee and other legal fees,” Vitangcol said through his motion.
“More so, the issuance of a hold departure order against accused Vitangcol had constricted his geographical mobility, effectively stopping the business opportunities he was recently working on. Thus, it would take time for the accused to generate and accumulate the funds necessary to pay for his counsel de parte,” he added.
Vitangcol also blamed the Ombudsman for smearing his reputation with its “biased” press releases, making him “unable to get new clients in the exercise of his profession.”
“The institution of this instant case, together with the seemingly calculated and biased press releases of the Office of the Ombudsman, had effectively ruined the reputation and integrity of the herein accused,” Vitangcol said, adding that the case had “greatly diminished his earning capacity.”
Vitangcol’s arraignment on Jan. 21 was deferred because he told the court he had yet to find a competent lawyer to represent him.
READ: Ex-MRT-3 official goes to arraignment still searching for lawyer
He lamented that some had refused to represent him in the high-profile case.
“I’m still in the process of engaging a competent legal counsel for the case… Some of the lawyers I approached refused, they don’t want to accept the case because it’s a high-profile case,” Vitangcol told the court
He also blamed the media for giving too much focus on his case.
“This is not a high-profile case. It is only the media that is making this a high-profile case… Who am I? I’m just an ordinary individual. So why is the media giving me this attention?” Vitangcol said.
READ: Ex-MRT chief blames media for legal woes
The Ombudsman has charged Vitangcol of graft for awarding without public bidding the maintenance contract for MRT-3 to Philippine Trans Rail Management and Services Corp. (PH Trams).
READ: Ex-MRT chief, 5 others indicted for graft
The Ombudsman also charged Vitangcol of failing to disclose that one of the incorporators of PH Trams – Arturo Soriano – was his wife’s uncle. Soriano is now a provincial accountant of Pangasinan.
Vitangcol was charged with PH Trams incorporators Wilson De Vera, Soriano, and Marlo Dela Cruz, Manolo Maralit, and Federico Remo.
They are charged of violating Sections 3(e) and 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 65(c) (1) of the Government Procurement Reform Act, arising from the MRT-3 interim maintenance contract.
Aside from the contract mess, the MRT is beset with operational breakdowns, delays, and long lines of passengers daily.
According to the Ombudsman, Vitangcol used his power and authority as general manager, as chief end-user, as head of the negotiating team, and as member of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), all at the same time, “to dictate the proponents invited for the preliminary negotiations” of the maintenance services.
Vitangcol also “intentionally hid his [affinitive] relationship with Soriano, which would have automatically disqualified PH Trams.”
The Ombudsman also said the PH Trams incorporators were liable for executing a false Affidavit of Disclosure dated Aug. 12, 2012 which stated that none of the incorporators are related by affinity with any member of the procurement teams.
Vitangcol and De Vera were accused of extorting $30 million from Inekon Group CEO and chair Josef Husek at the residence of then Czech Ambassador to the Philippines Josef Rychtar in exchange for granting Inekon the P3.7-billion contract to supply 48 coaches for the MRT-3 expansion. The money was later reduced to $2.5 million.
The Ombudsman is still investigating the alleged bribery.
READ: Ombudsman to probe Vitangcol for bribe try
According to the Ombudsman investigation, the contract was awarded to PH Trams in a negotiated procurement on Oct. 2012 even though there was no emergency situation to justify it.
The MRT management entered into an interim maintenance contract with PH Trans in joint venture with CB&T in Oct. 2012, after deciding not to renew the contract with original maintenance provider Sumitomo Corp.
The contract, which was renewed three times until Sept. 2013, was worth $1.15 million monthly.
Securities and Exchange Commission records also showed that PH Trams was two months old when the project was awarded, having been incorporated only on Aug. 2012 with a paid-up capital of only P625,000.00.
READ: MRT fiasco: Vitangcol indicted for graft, Abaya spared
In his motion for reconsideration, Vitangcol questioned why Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya was not included in the graft indictment.
Abaya is also acting Liberal Party president.
“Vitangcol performed the duties as general manager of MRT-3… It was the DOTC, which decided to proceed with the interim award… It is just unfortunate that Vitangcol suddenly took all the blame in the contract where he is merely a part of the team,” his motion said.
READ: Why spare Abaya? Vitangcol asks Ombudsman
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 prohibits public officials from causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
Meanwhile, Section 3(h) of the antigraft law prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
Section 65(c)(1) of R.A. 9184 punishes the act of “submit[ting] eligibility requirements of whatever kind and nature that contain false information or falsified documents calculated to influence the outcome of the eligibility screening process or conceal such information in the eligibility requirements when the information will lead to a declaration of ineligibility from participating in public bidding.”
