MANILA — Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has approved the finding of probable cause against former Capiz Governor Vicente Bermejo for one count of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
Bermejo is accused of approving the purchase of four vehicles in 2007 acquired through public auction.
Documents show that the provincial government acquired three Pajero wagons and one Isuzu Manlift truck for the total amount of PHP1.95 million.
Three of the four vehicles were given to the Roxas City government and the Panay municipal government.
Documents from the Commission on Audit (COA) noted that the check payment of PHP1.95 million was made payable to Bermejo “as reimbursement”.
Likewise, records from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) show that the certificates of registration for the two units of 1994 Mitsubishi Pajero wagon and one unit 1990 Elf truck were all dated Aug. 15, 2007 and were registered under the name of the Roxas City government.
Bermejo failed to file any counter-affidavit during the probe.
In its resolution, the Ombudsman said that “the procurement of the vehicles was not made in compliance with the provisions of the Government Procurement Reform Act (Republic Act No. 9184) particularly the requirement of public bidding. As verified with the Procurement Service-PhilGEPS, there was no invitation to bid posted at the PhilGEPS website for the procurement of the four vehicles by the province of Capiz for 2007.”
Probe ascertained that the vehicles were purchased by Bermejo by participating and being the highest bidder in a public auction held by the Phil-Pan Subic Ventures, Inc.
“The practice of making purchases in a public auction is not among the modes of procurement allowed under R.A. No. 9184,” the Ombudsman said.
Morales said that “Bermejo as the approving authority of the purchases being the head of the procuring entity, acted with evident bad faith in purchasing the vehicles without a public bidding but through a public auction. Respondent ought to know the basic provisions of R.A. No. 9184 which require procurement to undergo either competitive bidding or any of the alternative modes and to implement the law to the letter. Yet, respondent utterly disregarded these established rules.”
She added that “the fact that the check intended for the payment of the vehicles is issued in respondent’s name would further show the irregularity in the purchase. There is nothing in the records to justify why the check was not made directly to the seller.” (PNA)
