Raps vs Pampanga mayor ordered
In its ruling, the commission ordered the CoA Prosecution and Litigation Office to refer the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for the filing of charges
The Commission on Audit (CoA) has ordered the filing of charges against Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy Tumang and other officials of the municipality over the anomalous purchase of P39.207 million construction materials.
The CoA proper, in its decision last 1 October denied the appeal of Tumang and affirmed the Notices of Disallowance issued by the Special Audit Team (SAT) in 2013 against the Mayor and other municipal officials: Marlon Maniacup, Bids and Awards Committee Chairman; Jesus Punzalan, BAC Vice Chairman; William Colis, Proprietor, Buyu Trading; and Construction and all the BAC members at the time the procurement was made, namely: Avelina Reyes, Lucila Agento and Romeo Razon.
In its ruling, the commission ordered the CoA Prosecution and Litigation Office to refer the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for the filing of charges against the above-named for violation of various laws.
“The Prosecution and Litigation Office, Legal Services Sector, this Commission, is hereby directed to refer the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for the filing of the appropriate charges, if warranted, against the following persons responsible for the procurement in violation of existing laws, rules and regulations,” it said.
The subject of the Notices of Disallowance is anomalous purchase of construction materials worth P39,207 million in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011.
The SAT earlier uncovered several deficiencies in the purchase of the said and thereafter issued several Notices of Disallowance in 2013.
The SAT said the procurement is anomalous as all transactions were awarded to Buyu Trading and Construction (Buyu) — a supplier which it said has questionable capacity as its registered place of business is residential and no construction materials can be seen at the area.
The SAT also said Buyu has also failed to issue Official Receipts for the transaction. It likewise questioned the mode of procurement which was shopping and the splitting of contracts by the officials of the municipality “which stifled or suppressed competition and produced results disadvantageous to the government.”
In his appeal, Tumang argued that there is no iota of evidence that would establish conspiracy between him, Buyu Trading Construction, and the officials of the municipality in relation to the conduct of the subject bidding and he had duly complied with his obligations as the head of the procuring entity.
In response, the SAT maintained that Mayor Tumang was not held liable on the ground of conspiracy with the winning bidder and other municipal officials. Rather, he was held liable for his participation asspecified in the assailed Notices of Disallowance and for his failure to exercise due diligence over fiscal matters of the municipality.