“Resurrected and recycled issues.”
This was Gov. Roel Degamo’s comment on news reports plastered in the national dailies Saturday that he and several others would be slapped with 11 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for the illegal disbursement of calamity funds used to pay for the province’s infrastructure projects in 2012.
A statement from the Office of the Ombudsman said the criminal charges stemmed from the illegal use of the calamity fund intended for the repair, rehabilitation and construction of structures damaged by natural calamities.
Also facing 11 counts of graft are Provincial Treasurer Danilo Mendez, Provincial Accountant Teodorico Reyes and Provincial Engineer Franco Alpuerto.
Mendez and Reyes were also indicted for 11 counts of Falsification of Public Documents.
The Ombudsman also ordered the filing of graft charges against Alejandro Lim Jr. of Lim General Contractor Corp., Mark Anthony Clemente of CTC Builders & Supplies Inc. Danny Chan of AJAN Jeada Inc., Wilfredo Chu of Bigfoot Construction & Supply, Farouk Macarambon of Fiat Construction Services, Maribel Ranola of Legazpi Premium Development Corp., and Ricardo Abriol Santos of Richmark Construction & Supply, the statement said.
The Governor said these are practically the same cases filed against him by June Vincent Gaudan before the 2013 elections, and which had hibernated for two years and resurrected before the elections in 2016.
Degamo said the Court of Appeals had already decided in his favor after reversing the Ombudsman suspension order last year.
After the elections last year came the dismissal order of the Ombudsman until the reversal order of the Court of Appeals finding Degamo guilty not of Grave Misconduct but only of Simple Misconduct for reasons that the Governor had acted in good faith in disbursing the P480 million calamity fund and with no criminal intent.
The administrative case has been elevated to the Supreme Court, where it will be decided in an en banc session.
In a statement released Friday, the Ombudsman said the results of the preliminary investigation revealed that in December 2011 Degamo requested assistance for the rehabilitation of the province’s infrastructure damaged by the December 2011 Typhoon Sendong and the 6.9 earthquake that happened in February 2012.
On June 5, 2012, the Department of Budget and Management issued a Special Allotment and Release Order (SARO) in the amount of P961.5million, out of which P480.7million was immediately released to the provincial government.
However, a few days later, or on June 19, 2012, the DBM informed Degamo that the SARO was being withdrawn due to the failure of the province to comply with existing guidelines for infrastructure projects. Technically, with the issuance of a negative SARO, the projects of the province were no longer supported by appropriation and allotment.
Despite the notice, Degamo, et. al. proceeded to award the 11 infrastructure contracts amounting to P143.2 million, representing the 15 percent advance payment to contractors. Upon audit, the Commission on Audit issued 11 Notices of Disallowance, observing that funds were certified available despite the withdrawal of the SARO.
The Ombudsman said Degamo failed to file any counter-affidavit to controvert the charges.
Based on the approved Resolution, it was explained that “respondents unilaterally ignored the DBMs directive and continued to award 11 infrastructure projects.”
According to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, “if respondents had reservations on the legality of the withdrawal of the positive SARO, they could have asked a higher executive authority or secured a judicial directive allowing them to retain control of the funds released to the province. This, respondents failed to do”.
Under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, public officials are prohibited from causing any undue injury to any party, 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.
Provincial Attorney Richard Enojo said these cases are an exact duplication of cases filed by Gaudan, which was decided by the Court of Appeals. The case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
Enojo is optimistic the criminal aspect will also be reversed by the Court of Appeals because it has the same funding and the same issue.
Degamo implemented the projects “to save lives” as he describes it, after the Department of Budget and Management issued a notice of cash allocation.
The Appellate Court said there was no criminal intent on the part of the governor as the projects were implemented in good faith because the governor was forced to act the way he did because of the crisis situation at that time.
Enojo stressed there can be no criminal intent and bad faith because with the 50 percent calamity fund, the accomplishment of 64 percent was more than what the money can accomplish.
In the case of Big Foot, their project was completed 100 percent, Enojo pointed out.
He also denied the supposed conspiracy theory and giving due advantage to the contractors. “If that was the case, the contractors would have also stopped the project when the report came out that the Special Allotment Release Order was withdrawn by DBM”, he said. (with PNA reports)
