Wednesday, August 22, 2007 Speak out: Issues that Mayor Osmeña raised By Primitivo c. cal
PLEASE allow me to clarify two issues that have arisen following the release of my final report on the Gov. Cuenco Ave. Traffic Engineering Study two weeks ago.
These issues are:
--Termination of my services as the first Project Director of the Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP).
--My indictment by the Sandigan-bayan relative to the NAIA International Passenger Terminal (IPT) III Project.
Let me clarify to Mayor Tomas Osmeña that I resigned as project director of MCDP on April 1, 1988 not because of our differences in opinion on a component of MCDP but because of my preparation for the bar examination in September 1988.
As a technocrat, I have always understood that my role is to give the best technical advice and that it is the prerogative of decision-makers to accept, reject or modify it.
I therefore do not have the habit of resigning just because my work or recommendation is not accepted by my superior.
When I resigned, I had two full time jobs as dean of UP College Cebu and MCDP project director.
I had to give up one job to be able devote part of my time to prepare for the bar exams.
I now realize that I failed to fully explain the circumstances of my resignation to Osmeña.
Meanwhile, Rules of Court prevent me from discussing the merit of the Sandigan case; I am only allowed to present the facts.
The case arose from a complaint filed in June 2003 before the Office of the Ombudsman by Ma. Cecilia Pesayco, corporate secretary of the Asia Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC), which used to be owned by six taipans but is now owned by Lucio Tan, against Pantaleon Alvarez as chair of the Technical Working Group, and the PBAC chair and members for conspiring to pre-qualify Piatco, builder of NAIA IPT III.
AEDC was the unsolicited BOT proponent of the project.
The information filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon before the Sandiganbayan in January 2005 accused Alvarez, Primitivo Cal, Francisco Atayde and Wilfredo Trinidad with violation of Sec. 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019, or “knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.”
The specific act pertains to the accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other to willfully, unlawfully and criminally, knowingly grant in favor of Piatco the privilege or benefit for the construction of the NAIA IPT III, knowing that Piatco is not a qualified bidder as it has no financial capability to undertake the project at the time of the pre-qualification under the BOT law, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Pesayco used as basis of her complaint the nullification of the NAIA IPT III contract by the Supreme Court.
One of the issues ruled upon by the Supreme Court was the pre-qualification of Piatco.
The PBAC that I headed pre-qualified Piatco on the basis of the combined net worth of the consortium.
But the Supreme Court pointed out that the total net worth of Security Bank, a member of the consortium, should have not been applied because the General Banking Act provides a restriction on the percentage that can be invested on non-banking activities.
It may be noted that no such restriction was provided for in the bidding documents and therefore was not applied by the PBAC.
Moreover, the PBAC considered actual proof of equity as being applicable as a precondition for award of contract and not at the pre-qualification stage.
Of course, Piatco was able to present proof of available equity prior to award of contract. (to be continued)
