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

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

crTY oF
X----

rl-o[o

) s.s.

-------X

COMPLAINT-AFF'IDAVIT
I, MANUEL P. MEJORADA, Filipino, of legal age, married, and
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:
a resident

ofNo. 2

Kasoy St., Block 11, Villa San Lorenzo Subd., Lapaz,5000 Iloilo City, after being sworn

1.

This affidavit establishes the facts and circumstances in support of a CRIMINAL
and

ADMINISTRATIVE complaint I am filing

against the following:

a. b.

HON. I'RANKLIN M. DRILON, Senate President, Senate ofthe
Philippines, GSIS Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City;

ENGR. EDILBERTO TAYAO, Regional Director, Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH), Regional Office VI, Fort San Pedro, Iloilo

City; and

c. The Chairman and Members, Bids and Awards Committee

(BAC),

A

CR

S

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 the
Govemment Procurement Reform Act), Republic Act No. 3019 (or the Anti-Graft
and Comrpt Practices Act, particularly'Section 3, paragraphs [e] and tg]) and other

relevant 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 was

P33,950,000. 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 240
calendar 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 entity

for this project.

7. Another document from PhiIGEPS which is labelled as "Award
(Ref No.: 466062)' which is attached as Annex the following information about the contract:
o'B"

Notice Abstract

of this complaint, contained

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.
d.
8.

Notice to proceed was issued on Jahuary 2,2CI13 with the contract end date on August 11,2013.
The said "Award Notice Abstract" was published on May 16, 2013. Under the heading "Date Created", the date indioated is 16-May-201'3'

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 DEVELOPMENT

ACCELERATION 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 this project and beneficiary from pecuniary gains derived from the anomalous implementation of the same.

of

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."
be included 10. The project fails to meet the strict standards for projects that should

in

No' 9184 the App of a procuring entity. Section 7.1 of the RIRR of Republic Act

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 improved

public 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.
t\

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 any
conspicuous place of the procuring entity."

RS

d.

\

b.

Section 37.4.2 which mandates that "The procuring entity, through the

e-{

BAC Secretariat, shall post a copy of the Notice to Proceed and the
approved contract in the PhilGEPS or the website of the procuring entity, any, within fifteen (15) calendar days &om the issuance of the Notice to Proceed."

if

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 the

contract had started to be implemented. In fact, it was past midway of the contract duration.
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 more

than SIX (6) months, contrary to what is provided under Section 38.1 of the zuRR

ofRA

9184.

15. As shown by incontrovertible evidence, almost every rule in the Revised

Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of RA 9184 was transgressed by the
respondent Bids and Awards Committee, which received approval from respondent Tayao.
16. The respondents made a mockery of our govemment procurement law. Their

actions betray complete disregard and disrespect for the fundamental principles for

which RA 9184 was enacted, particularly TRANSPARENCY and COMPETITIVENESS in the procurem.ent of contracts.
17. Such actions were taken because of pressure from respondent DRILON who was

behind the funding of this project.

THE CONTRACT IS GROSSLY DISADVANITAGEOUS TO THE GOYERNMENT AND WAS AWARDED TO A *FAVORED" CONTRACTOR OF RESPONDENT SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKIN M. DRILON, CAUSING T]NDUE INJT]RY TO THE GOVERNMENT Ah[D TAXPAYERS.
18. The contract was awarded to ROPRIM CONSTRUCTION which submiued a

bid

(:<<

of P33,908,79t.50.

A
\

o,i

a. b.

The winning bid is only P41,208.50 below the approved budget for the contract of
P3

3,950,000.00.

Even on its face, the award of this contract already smacks of a rigged

bidding, in which the winning bidder submitting an offer so slightly below
the ABC.

i.

The winning bid is only 0.l2Yo below the ABC, which is

ridiculously too close to the ABC to be believed.
19. The procuring entity overpriced the

ABC for the project, considering that its scope

of work involves largely back-filling with earth materials for a length of 720|inear
meters and a 4-meter wide dike with concrete blocks on the embarkment, with a 3meter wide asphalted surface over it.

a.

About 70% of the contract involves back-filling using earth materials for
the "slope protection works".

i. ii.

In Iloilo province and city, the delivered cost of earth materials is
P6,000, more or less, per truckload.

At this cost, the project would require 3,950 truckloads (computed at
20 cubic meters per delivery), which is improbable, impossible and unbelievable, because the area covered is just 720 meters long and 4
meters wide.

iii.

At most, it is estimated by knowledgeable engineers I have
consulted that the area would require only 1,500 truckloads of earth material.

iv.

Based on this estimate, which can readily be verified by a technical

evaluation by this Honorable Office with assistance from independent engineers, the component for back-filling is overpriced

by at least P15,000,000!

b"

For the installation of concrete trlocks and the provision for an asphalt pavement (3 meters wide), it is estimated that these components would only
cost P4-5 million, and there is an overprice of about P5,000,000 on the
same.

c. All in all, the contract is overpriced by about TWENTY MILLION
(P20,000,000.00).

PESOS

20. ROPRIM CONSTRUCTION is clearly a favored contractor of respondent Senate
President Franklin M. Drilon.

a.

This contractor is the same entity that was awarded the contracts for the

=s
7<
\

Iloilo Esplanade (commonly known

as "Esplanade

I" to distinguish it from

the project subject of this complaint).

f

i.

Esplanade

I is subject of another complaint I had filed against

respondents Senate President Franklin Drilon, DPWH regional

director Edilberto Tayao and members of the Bids and Awards
Committee before this Honorable Office last September 10, 2013. 21. The project does not serve any purpose. It doesn't lead to anywhere except perhaps
the house of

Iloilo City Mayor

Jed Patrick E. Mabilog in Barangay Tap-oc,

Molo. It

is an extravagant expenditure, a senseless waste ofscarce resources. It only
aggravates the poverty of our poor as

it deprived them of vital services for health,

livelihood and education.
22.Tl.te project also impinges upon environmental issues.

a.

Three years ago, Senate President Drilon ordered the Land Management

Bureau of the DENR to conduct a technical survey along the Iloilo River to determine its old boundaries and find out whether private individuals or
business establishments have etcroached into its waterways.

b.

A briefing conducted by the DENR shortly after respondent Senate
President Drilon made that directive showed that based on satellite

photographs, many such persons or businesses have indeed illegally
encroached on the waterways and narrowed the

Iloilo River.

c.

senate President Drilon said he would ask the

DEN& after establishing

who the offenders are, to remove or demolish such illegal structures or
reclaimed land from the river because these constricted the ebb and flow the water.

of

d. After this issue became public and given wide dissemination
Neil Jimena filed
a

in the

broadcast and print media, a controversy arose when an individual named

criminal and administrative complaint against city

Mayor Jed Pahick E. Mabilog, whose house and lot property sits on the
bank of the Iloilo River along No. 4 Tap-oc St., Molo, Iloilo City, for allegedly back-filling on the waterway and illegally encroaching on the
same

with such reclamation.
The property of Mayor Mabilog is along the stretch of the

i. ii.
e.

Iloilo

River bank on which this Esplanade II project was built.

It is most likely the evidence of wrongdoing on his part will be
buried under the dike built under this contract.

There is a strong likelihood that the Esplanade II project encroaches on the waterway of the Iloilo River in violation of the water code of the Philippines.

G\

\-

f.

I asked the Land Management Bureau for
three years ago.

a copy of the survey undertaken

i.

I was informed by Director Maximo Ramos, OIC-RegionaI
Technical Director for Lands, in his letter dated August 7 ,2013, that the only copy of this survey had been forwarded to the Iloilo River Development council, of which city Mayor Jed patrick E. Mabilog is the chairman (see Annex'oC").

ii.

Director Ramos also referred my letter request for city Mayor Jed
Patrick E. Mabilog for the possible supply of a cop of the survey to me as per his letter dated August 7 (Annex ,.D,,).

,2013

g. Upon receipt of the letter from Director Ramos of the LMB-DENR,

I wrote

city Mayor Mabilog on August 22,2013 asking for a copy of the same. i. A copy of my letter to Mayor Mabilog and the return card are
attached as Annexes o'E" and'oF', respectively.

h. until

now, or seven (7) months afterwards, I have received no reply from

Mayor Mabilog.

i.

It is noteworthy to mention here that nothing happened after the conduct of
the survey; no illegally reclaimed areas on the waterway were ever demolished or removed.

i.

This na:rowing or constriction of the Iloilo River waterway is a
factor for the perennial problem of floods in streets of Iloilo City

which run parallel to it, or in the vicinity of the river.

ii.

Such neglect of responsible public officials in enforcing the law has caused untold suffering of our people and damage to their properties.

23. I hereby attest to the truthfulness of the foregoing statements.

In witness thereto, I hereby affix my signature tt tt City, Philippines for Cebu City.

&

7

th day of March 20t4 in Iloilo

EJORADA
Lae-

ryr'

Fab

-1To tzlog

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this -L1--ryrday of Mar ch20l4.I

hereby certify that I

have personally examined the affiant and that

i am frrliy satisfied that he voluntarily

executed and understood his affi daviUcomplaint.

GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PI]OSECUTION OFi IdE,R

I

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful