House orders BIR to probe Sereno taxes
The House of Representatives’ committee on justice directed the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) yesterday to conduct a formal investigation into the earnings and tax submissions of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno when she represented the government in the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. case from 2004 to 2010.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, chairman of the committee, dispensed with the presence of BIR Deputy Commissioner Arnel Guballa and his team during the hearing on the impeachment complaint against Sereno and gave them until Feb. 19 to finish all the tax records of the Chief Justice, who reportedly failed to file her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) 17 times.
ABS party-list Rep. Eugene
Michael de Vera asked the BIR officials if they have already dug deeper into allegations that the chief magistrate did not declare and pay the right taxes for the P37 million she got from the Piatco case.
“Gusto lang namin malaman kung ano iyung totoo. At gusto lang namin malaman kung nagbayad ba siya ng VAT (value added tax) kung over P2 million ang kanyang kinita (We just want to know the truth. And we just want to know if she paid VAT),” De Vera said, adding it was also important to find out how much Sereno received and if she paid her taxes.
Guballa replied that they are still in the process of collating all the necessary documents.
“All your queries and observations regarding… the supposed income of the Chief Justice, right now the bureau has no formal inquiry yet. We can answer that if we will conduct now the formal investigation,” Guballa said.
Lawyer Lorenzo Gadon had alleged in his impeachment complaint that Sereno deliberately excluded in her SALNs lawyer’s fees amounting to P37 million for representing the government in the case.
But Sereno refuted this, saying it was just P30 million and that P8.67 million was paid to the government as taxes.
IT consultant questioned
In the same hearing, Sereno’s information technology (IT) consultant, Helen Macasaet appeared and said the nearly P12 million she received in four years from the judiciary was much smaller than what she got from other state-owned firms and private corporations where she was “solutions provider.”
Lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, one of the spokespersons for Sereno, also stressed there was nothing irregular or anomalous in the hiring of Macasaet, who allegedly received “excessive compensation” during her stint as consultant.
Macasaet informed the House committee on justice that she was just actually re- ceiving a “net pay of P80,000” per month when the Supreme Court hired her from 2013 to 2017.
“I was receiving P925,000 monthly from November 2008 to June 2010 when I was hired as solutions provider during the GSIS (Government Service Insurance System) database crash, or during the time of former GSIS president and general manager Winston Garcia,” she told Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso.
At one point, Macasaet also revealed that she was earning about “P10 million in annual fees” from her other IT jobs and that among her clients were the Social Security System, Diwa Publishing, Philippine Science High School, Hyundai, Nissan and Volvo.
She could not recall the fees she received when she was “principal consultant” for the SSS in 1995, except that it was given to her “in dollars.”
But Macasaet still vividly recalled that she was hired for about P400,000 to P500,000 a month by the “King Group of Companies,” which operates the motel chain Victoria Court in Metro Manila.
Macasaet also appeared at the hearing with her “team of legal counsels.”
“I just hired them yesterday. I just paid them yesterday (Tuesday),” she said.
Umali and Veloso – a former Court of Appeals justice – reminded Macasaet that GSIS’ assets run in “trillions” it being a state pension fund and government-owned and controlled corporation, unlike the judiciary that is just “dependent” on yearly budgetary allocations.
“This is an isolated case, and it cannot be compared with your engagements in the past,” Umali told her.
“You cannot compare apples with oranges,” Veloso, for his part, told Macasaet and agreed with Umali’s position that GSIS has “trillions of pesos in funds.”
Macasaet explained she did not receive allowances unlike the SC employees and that out of P250,000 monthly pay for her, “I get a net pay of P80,000 which I (use to buy) my make up, pair of shoes and decent clothes.”
“It’s not comparable (judiciary and IT jobs in private firms). I even have to pay for my medical expenses as a senior citizen. I didn’t ask for reimbursements,” Macasaet said.
Hiring of consultant defended
The camp of Sereno again defended her office’s hiring of Macasaet.
“The hiring of Helen Macasaet was done in accordance with the Government Procurement Reform Laws,” Lacanilao pointed out.
Lacanilao also explained that Macasaet was qualified for the project where she was tasked to “review, assess and update the implementation of its Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP), a nationwide automation of more than 2,700 courts.”
“Helen Macasaet has been an IT practitioner for 20 years. She was the principal consultant of the infamous GSIS crash, the biggest ICT (information and communications technology) disaster in the history of the Philippines. She fixed the ICT systems in GSIS and to date, the ICT architecture she had set up is still being used,” he added.
Macasaet, who allegedly has ties with Sereno, was paid some P10 million for her services in just six months – a pay much higher than the salary of the justices.
The contract, which covered six periods of six months each from October 2013 to June 2016, involved services of Macasaet “to provide technical and policy advice to the Office of the Chief Justice and the Management Information Systems Office” of the SC for the implementatiom of EISP and related ICT projects.
In the first period under the contract, Macasaet was paid P600,000 or P100,000 per month. But in the succeeding periods, the amount was increased to P1.5 million or P250,000 per month.
The STAR earlier reported that a review report ordered by the SC has been submitted to the justices but they have yet to review it and decide whether or not to approve the recommendation to strike down the contract, which was fully paid and had already lapsed.
This issue on Sereno’s IT consultant was among the 27 allegations in the impeachment complaint of Gadon against the Chief Justice before the House justice committee.