Sunday, March 25, 2007 Cabaero: More questions By Nini B. Cabaero Beyond 30
THE filing of charges by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas against those believed responsible for the “overpriced” decorative lamps bought for the 12th Asean Summit raises more questions than answers.
What the Ombudsman-Visayas found out after a three-week fact-finding was evidence to support claims of overpricing in the purchase of the lampposts and street lights and of a “conspiracy” among the suppliers, public works and highways officials in Cebu and local government heads.
The conspiracy angle was based on suspicions of an arranged bidding because of the same amounts cited in the program of works and estimates prepared by the local government and in the bid submitted. It raises the possibility that the bidder had access to the computations made by the local government.
What immediately comes to mind is why those charged were emboldened to overprice by an atrocious amount. What made them think they could get away with something like this?
If the conspiracy part were to be proven, it would be good to know if this was the first time they colluded with each other to steal the people’s money. There was talk of an SOP (standard operating procedure) that connotes the regularity of grease money in public works projects.
The anti-graft office last Friday found evidence of wrongdoing in the lamppost purchases and cited 19 public officials in criminal and administrative cases. The officials include Mandaue City Mayor Thadeo Ouano, Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Arturo Radaza and Director Roberto Lala of the Department of Public Works and Highways in Central Visayas. Other public works and engineering officials were also named.
A graft investigator will make a deeper inquiry into the cases and decide whether to dismiss them or elevate them to the court or the Sandiganbayan.
The lamppost purchases reached P356.87 million and were made in time for the Cebu hosting of the 12th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Summit. The lampposts symbolized the new look that Cebu sported for its international visitors.
It was a rush job to install the hundreds of those new lampposts before the original schedule of the summit. The summit was originally set for Dec. 2006 but, on the last minute, its organizers decided to move it to January 2007.
But the rush work is not a justification to do away with laws on government spending and to set aside internal checks and balances. Cebu was not at war or in an emergency situation during the summit preparations that the implementation of certain rules had to be suspended.
The rush to make Cebu look pretty before the summit opening, however, could have been one reason why the questionable purchases proceeded.
The filing of charges against the 19 officials or even their suspension from public office as a preventive measure is not closure to an ugly part of what was supposed to be a proud moment for Cebu. It is only the beginning of a journey to find answers to the many questions that the controversy had set off.
