Saturday, December 15, 2007 Cris wants official charged
BUSINESSMAN Crisologo Saavedra considers the filing of the criminal and administrative complaints against the 10 public works officials involved in the Asean summit security cameras mess “a vindication.”
But it is not entirely a victory.
“Why was (Assistant Director) Pureza Fernandez not included in the complaint?” he said in an interview.
Fernandez, he said, blocked his delivery of the 40 surveillance cameras and made it appear that he wasn’t able to deliver the equipment on time.
His supposed failure to deliver the goods was then used to justify the Department of Public Works and Highways’ subsequent negotiated contract with Triton Communications Inc.
The anti-graft office, in a final evaluation report (FER) released last Wednesday, moved to upgrade its fact-finding investigation on Saavedra’s complaint.
Based on the FER, the ombudsman found enough evidence that bidding rules may have been bent in the purchase of P83 million worth of surveillance equipment used for the Asean summit that Cebu hosted last January.
Those charged include former DPWH 7 director Robert Lala and former assistant director Marlina Alvizo and Regional Attorney Agustinito Hermoso.
They are also respondents in another Asean summit-related controversy pending before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas— the purchase of P365.87 million worth of lampposts put up in the cities of Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu.
But according to the investigating panel, there is no evidence linking Fernandez, Augustus Monico Zafra and Ellynn Banquil to the alleged violations in the camera contract.
Saavedra, in his original complaint filed early this year, accused Lala and his co-respondents of depriving him of the right to supply the surveillance cameras.
He said the reason his contract got scrapped even if he was ready to delivery the cameras was because he refused to give a certain percentage of the proceeds to certain DPWH officials.
But the respondents had said that the cancellation of the contract was because Saavedra was not able to make his deliveries on time.
“If it was not for the participation of Fernandez, then the supplies could have been delivered because we legitimately won the bidding, not Triton, which was even disqualified during the prequalification stage,” Saavedra said.
He wants to know if there is a way the complaint against the 10 DPWH officials could be amended to include Fernandez.
The anti-graft office’s FER did not confirm the allegation on the payoff but ruled that whatever delays Saavedra incurred in the delivery of his equipment did not justify the cancellation of the contract and the negotiated contract with Triton.
Saavedra, based on the FER, could have been fined up to a certain amount per day of delay.
“In case of failure to make the full delivery within the time specified above, a penalty of one tenth of one percent for every day of delay shall be imposed,” the panel said.
They then ruled that there was indeed “prima facie evidence of substantial injury attended by manifest partiality and gross inexcusable negligence caused to the complainant (Saavedra) when its contract was terminated in favor of Triton Communications.” (KNR)
