Mayor Olivarez says tax settlement has SC approval

The Office of the Ombudsman (File photo by NINO JESUS ORBETA / Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Parañaque City Mayor Edwin Olivarez on Wednesday said he is letting the plunder and graft cases filed against him to run its natural course before the Office of the Ombudsman.

READ: Parañaque mayor, 12 others sued over disadvantageous tax payment

Olivarez said he is leaving everything to the wisdom of the ombudsman regarding the charges filed against him by a former barangay kagawad (village councilor).

“We submit to the wisdom of the honorable ombudsman on this case,” Olivarez said when sought for comment.

He added that the Parañaque City officials named in the case strongly believe that the charges will be eventually dismissed knowing that they have done nothing disadvantageous to the local government.

“We would just like to inform the public that no less than the Honorable Supreme Court approved the compromised agreement by the parties,” Olivarez pointed out.

The complaint was filed by former barangay kagawad Jonathan Bernardo against the mayor and 12 other city officers over tax settlements with the Wenceslao group that led the government to lose out on P453.37 million in foregone revenue.

Bernardo asked the Ombudsman to suspend, investigate and eventually prosecute Olivarez, 10 councilors and two city officials for violation of Sections 3(e), 3(g) and 3(i) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to Section 4(b) of the graft law and Section 2 of the Plunder Law.

The tax settlements allegedly defrayed the liabilities of the private co-respondents—D.M. Wenceslao & Associates, Inc., Wendel Holdings Co., Inc., Fabricom Manufacturing  Corp., and Aseana Holdings, Inc.—by “a whopping 62.68%.”

This meant the firms were only required to pay P269.89 million, or 37.32% of the P723.27 million dues, under two tax settlements drafted by the city legal office on Nov. 4, 2013 and “readily approved” by the Sangguniang Panlungsod only three days later.

Bernardo claimed construction magnate Delfin Wenceslao was a godfather during Olivarez’s silver wedding anniversary, as he got a hold of the invitation.

“They all conspired to unjustly enrich themselves by taking advantage of their official position, relations, influence and connection (being the godparent to the mayor),” the complaint alleged.

The compromise agreements assailed by Bernardo arose from a longstanding dispute between the city and the Wenceslao group over real property taxes from 1995 to 2002.

The city and the firms tried in 2008 to settle the matter through a compromise agreement, but it contained a precondition subjecting it to the approval of the city council. The council, however, expressed its reservations and returned the memorandum of agreement to the mayor’s office without taking action.

While the 2008 MoA went through a month of deliberation and public consultations, Bernardo said the approval of the new compromise agreement was attended by bad faith and undue haste.

Bernardo that the settlement should have been approved through a city ordinance and not a resolution, especially as it allegedly contained provisions supplanting Ordinances Nos. 96-13 and 07-11.

“The condonation of a tax liability is equivalent to and is in the nature of a tax exemption. Thus, it should be sustained only when expressed in the law,” read his complaint.

Bernardo added the settlement was “not uniform nor equitable” because it was “purely intended to benefit… the mayor’s Godparent!” He said the city government violated the “uniform and equitable assessment” of the other locators in the area.

Besides the mayor and the Wenceslao group, other respondents include: councilors Rufino Allanigue, John Ryan Yllana, Merlies Antipuesto, Vincent Kenneth Favis, Florencia Amurao, Brillante Inciong, Roselle Nava-Tan, Joan Villafuerte, Maritess de Asis and Jacqueline Bustamante-Mendoza, as well as city legal officer Rommel Frias and officer-in-charge city treasurer Anthony Pulmano.

A similar complaint was reportedly filed in 2015 before the Ombudsman by anonymous complainants.  JPV