At the rate Mayor Duterte and former Mayor Ben de Guzman are hurling brickbats at each other in the media, it is likely that the thick of the fight in the mayoral arena will be carried between the two of them and not between Speaker Boy Nograles and Vice Mayor Sara Duterte come May election. Both Duterte and de Guzman are running for vice mayor in the forthcoming polls.
***
The issue is corruption. Mayor Duterte has announced in his weekly TV program that he has documents that could pin de Guzman on corruption in the construction of the Artica Sports Dome. The mayor’s statement was apparently in reaction to the disclosure of former Mayor de Guzman on the P2.9 billion taxpayers money allegedly used to purchase properties, buildings and equipment under Duterte’s city administration but which the Commission on Audit (COA) could not locate, thus giving rise to suspicion that the alleged acquisitions of properties using P2.9 billion taxpayer’s money were actually “ghost” purchases appearing in the city’s financial report since 7 years ago.
***
Duterte fired back at de Guzman with an announcement in this TV program inviting the public to come to his office and see for themselves the alleged corruption in the construction of the Artica Sports Dome. The mayor, however, did not say whether or not the documents he vowed to exhibit to the public included the official findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) absolving former Mayor de Guzman from any irregularities arising in the implementation of the P300 million sports center.
***
Disparagingly making fun of de Guzman’s native accent in raising the question why city hall paid the bank loan used for the construction of the Artica Sports Dome if the project was indeed shrouded with anomaly, Duterte said he had to pay the P150 million bank loan contracted by the previous administration to construct the sports center since it was the city’s obligation. But even so, the mayor refused to pursue the completion of the project alleging that there was corruption involved in its implementation notwithstanding the official findings of the COA clearing de Guzman on Duterte’s charges and declaring the project well above-board.
***
The city hall has paid the full amount of P150 million initial release of the bank from the principal P300 million loan of the city government with the Land Bank of the Philippines to construct the Artica Sports Dome sometime September last year. It also paid the contractor that undertook the construction of the sports project.
***
I had a long talk with a lawyer one of the 18 barristers retained by the Nograles camp whose name I am not in position to reveal per his request. I met him in one of the downtown hotel coffeeshops yesterday. He was rather critical on the assertions of Mayor Duterte on the Artica Sports Dome.
***
My lawyer friend argued that Mayor Duterte could be held liable under the anti-graft law for paying the bank loan of the city government in the construction of the unfinished Artica Sports Dome but without any intention of completing the project for public use. He said that using the taxpayer’s money to pay for an unfinished government project that the mayor refuse to pursue for the benefit of the public is injurious to the government.
***
The lawyer opened his attaché case and pulled out the recent edition of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. He carefully thumbed through the pages and finally came into what he was looking for – Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
***
Section 3 Paragraph (e) of RA 3019 provides: “Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision applies to any officers or employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.”
***
Why did Duterte pay the P150 million obligation of the city government to the bank if he believed that the project for which the money was used was polluted by corruption, posed the lawyer? Why did not Duterte file a complaint for graft against de Guzman if he was convinced that the former mayor was involved in corruption in the project? Did Duterte realize that a lot of taxpayer’s money had gone to waste for his refusal to finish the sports center after paying the city’s obligation on the project?
***
The lawyer said Duterte’s obstinacy against finishing the sports project was tainted with political color because he did not want the P300 million world-class sports center to go to the credit of former Mayor de Guzman who initiated the project. Thus the mayor systematically imputed corruption on the former mayor in the Artica Sports Dome construction ostensibly to justify his refusal to pursue the project even with the official findings of the COA extricating de Guzman from the mayor’s corruption charges. This, according the lawyer, is manifest partiality and evident bad faith violative of RA 3019.
***
Talking with my lawyer friend somewhat enriched my mind on the nuances of the anti-graft law. In fact he told me that on cases of graft violation such as this, the Office of the Ombudsman may not wait for any complainant to question the offense. He cited RA 6770 on the function of the Ombudsman mandating the graft office to investigate “on its own” any act or omission of public officers or employees if such acts are illegal. The Ombudsman no doubt knew about the illegal act involved in the Artica Sports Dome controversy so he has work to do.
|
