Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Complaint Affidavit Graft Case vs Senate President Drilon Et Al over anomalous Esplanade II project in Iloilo City.

Complaint Affidavit Graft Case vs Senate President Drilon Et Al over anomalous Esplanade II project in Iloilo City.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 122 |Likes:
Published by Manuel Mejorada
The bidding of the Esplanade II (as distinguished from Esplanade I) in Iloilo City was rigged and overpriced by about P20 million. To hold the officials behind this project accountable and liable, I filed this complaint before the Ombudsman on March 27, 2014.
The bidding of the Esplanade II (as distinguished from Esplanade I) in Iloilo City was rigged and overpriced by about P20 million. To hold the officials behind this project accountable and liable, I filed this complaint before the Ombudsman on March 27, 2014.

More info:

Published by: Manuel Mejorada on Mar 27, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CR
S
A
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
)
crTY
oF
rl-o[o
) s.s.
X---- -------X
COMPLAINT-AFF'IDAVIT
I, MANUEL
P.
MEJORADA, Filipino, of
legal
age,
married,
and
a
resident
ofNo.
2
Kasoy
St.,
Block
11,
Villa
San
Lorenzo
Subd.,
Lapaz,5000
Iloilo
City,
after being sworn
in
accordance
with
law,
do
hereby
depose and state:
1.
This
affidavit
establishes
the
facts and
circumstances
in
support
of
a
CRIMINAL
and
ADMINISTRATIVE
complaint
I
am
filing
against
the
following:
a.
HON.
I'RANKLIN
M. DRILON,
Senate
President,
Senate
ofthe
Philippines,
GSIS
Financial
Center, Roxas
Blvd.,
Pasay
City;
b.
ENGR.
EDILBERTO TAYAO,
Regional
Director,
Department
of PublicWorks
and
Highways (DPWH),
Regional
Office
VI,
Fort
San
Pedro,
Iloilo
City;
and
c.
The Chairman
and
Members,
Bids
and
Awards
Committee
(BAC),
Department
of Public Works
and
Highways (DPWH),
Regional
Office No.
VI,
Fort
San
Pedro,
Iloilo
City.
2.
The
afore-named
public offrcials,
conspiring
and
confederating
with
each ottrer,
with
intent
to
defraud'the government,
violated
Republic
ActNo.
9184 (or theGovemment Procurement Reform
Act),
Republic
Act No.
3019 (or the
Anti-Graft
and
Comrpt
Practices
Act,
particularly'Section
3, paragraphs
[e]
and
tg])
and
otherrelevant laws,
in
the
procurement
and
implementation
of
a
project entitled"Construction
qf
Slope
Protection
Works Alone
Iloilo
River
Sta. 5
+ 700-IR to
Sta.
6
+ 420k-IR (Right Bank)" in
Iloilo
City
(Underscoring supplied
for
emphasis).
3.
The
same
public
officials
also
committed
dishonesty,
grave
misconduct,malversation
of public
funds
and
other
such offenses
as
may
be
determined by
this
Honorable
Offrce
based
on
the facts
and
circumstances drawn
from
evidence.
BACKGROUf{p
4.
The project was advertised
in
an
Invitation to
Bid (ITB)
on
the website
of
the
Philippine
Government
Electronic
Procurement
System
(PhilGEPS)
on June
5,
2012.
A
copy (print
out
from
PhiIGEPS archives)
of
the
Bid Notice
Abstract
for
the
project
with
Reference
Number
1841633
is
hereto attached
as
Annex
o'A".
 
5.
The approved budget
for
the contract
as
appearing
in
the
Invitation to Bid
wasP33,950,000. The
scope
of work
was
for
the'oconstruction
of
720 (meters)
long
slope
protection
work
(earth
dike
with
concrete
blocks
on
side slopes)
including
3m
wide
asphalt
pavement on 4.0m
dike
road". The contract duration was
for
240calendar days.
The
public bidding
was:scheduled
on
June
26,
2012.
6.
The Department
of Public Works
and
Highways (DPWH)
Region
VI,
represented
by
respondent
EDILBERTO
TAYAO
as
Regional
Director,
is
the
procuring entityfor
this project.
7.
Another
document
from
PhiIGEPS
which
is labelled
as
"Award Notice Abstract
(Ref
No.:
466062)' which
is
attached
as
Annex
o'B"
of
this complaint,
containedthe
following
information
about
the contract:
a"
The contract was
awarded
to
RoPRIM
CONSTRUCTION
with
address at
Lot
5
Block
5,
Villa
Las
Palmas,
Jaro,Iloilo City
for
the contract amount
of
P33,908,791"50;
b.
The contract was awarded on December
27,2A12
under Contract
Number
t2G00026;
c.
Notice to
proceed
was
issued
on
Jahuary 2,2CI13
with
the contract
end date
on
August 11,2013.
d.
The
said
"Award Notice Abstract"
was
published
on
May
16, 2013.
Under theheading
"Date
Created", the
date
indioated
is
16-May-201'3'
8.
The project
is
better
known
in
Iloilo
City
as
"ESPLANADE
II",
a
pet
undertaking
of
respondent
sENATE
PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN
M. DRILON. It
is believed to
have been
funded
from
the
scandalous,
anomalous
DEVELOPMENTACCELERATION
PROGRAM (DAP) of
the
Aquino
administration upon the
initiative of
respondent
DRILON.
While
the project proponent is
DPWH,
for all
intents
and purposes,
this
is
a
project
of
respondent
DRILON.
He is the architect
of
this project
and
beneficiary from
pecuniary
gains
derived
from
the anomalousimplementation
of
the
same.
THE
CONTRACT
VIOLATES
REPUBLIC ACT
NO.9184
AI[D
ITS
REVISED
IMPLEMENTING
RULES AND
REGULATIONS (RIRR).
9.
The project
was
not included
in
the
Annual
Procurement Plan
(APP) of
the
procuring
entrty
which
violates Section 7.2
of
the
zuRR
which
mandates
that
"No
procurement shall
be
undertaken
unless
it
is
in
accordance
with
the approved APP
of
the
procuring
entity."
10.
The
project fails to
meet
the
strict
standards
for
projects that should
be
included
in
the
App
of
a
procuring entity.
Section
7.1
of
the
RIRR of
Republic
Act
No'
9184
 
t\
RS
\
e-{
d.
states
that "Consistent
with
govemment
fiscal discipline
measures,
only
those
considered crucial to the
efficient
discharge
of
governmental
functions
shall
be
included
in
the
APP."
a.
There is
nothing
about
the project that
would
make
it
o'crucial"
to
the
delivery of
govemment
services
as
it
is
an
opulent, wasteful, extravagant'obeautification" project that
makes
no
contribution
to
tourism
or
improvedpublic
service.
11.
The
Invitation to
Bid (ITB)
for
the contract
was
not published
in
a
newspaper
of
national
daily circulation in
accordance
with
Section
22.2.1(a) of
the
RIRR of
RA
91
84.12.
Based on
the
data
reported in the
"Award Notice
Abstracf'
mentioned
previously(Annex
o'B"),
the
respondent
Bids
and
Awards
Committee
also
violated
the
following
sections
of
the zuRR
of
RA
9184:
a.
Section
37.t.6
which
provides:
"The BAC,
through the
Secretariat,,
shall
post,
within
three
(3)
calendar days
from its
issuance, the
Notice of
Award
in
the PhilGEPS,
the
website
of
the
procuring entity,
if
any,
and
anyconspicuous
place
of
the
procuring
entity."
b.
Section
37.4.2
which
mandates
that
"The procuring entity,
through the
BAC
Secretariat, shall post
a
copy
of
the
Notice to
Proceed and
theapproved contract
in
the PhilGEPS or
the
website
of
the
procuring entity,
if
any,
within
fifteen
(15)
calendar days
&om the
issuance
of
the
Notice to
Proceed."
c.
Section
38.1
which
provides that
"The
procurement
process
from
the
opening
of
bids up to the award
of
contract shall not
exceed
three (3)months, or
a shorter
period
to
be
determined by the
procuring entity
concerned."
13.
To reiterate,
the
Notice of Award
was
issued
to ROPRIM CONSTRUCTION on
December
27
,
2012. The
Notice to
Proceed was issued on January
2,
20L3 .
But
the
said
Notices were
posted on
the PhiIGEPS
only
on
May
16,
2013,long
after thecontract
had started
to
be
implemented.
In
fact,
it
was past
midway of
the contractduration.
14.
The opening
of
bids
for
the contract
was
held on
June
26,2012.
The
Notice
to
Proceed
was
issued on January
2,2013.
The entire procurement
process
took
morethan
SIX
(6) months, contrary
to
what
is
provided
under Section 38.1
of
the
zuRR
ofRA
9184.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->