Carcar's city engineer charged with graft

The Office of the OmbudsmanVisayas has charged the city engineer/ acting building official of Carcar City for violating anti-graft laws following his refusal to issue a fencing permit.

Graft investigation and prosecution officer III Eleanor Tayadde Mira found probable cause to hold for trial Santiago Calinawan, Jr., for a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“… when the application and the plan are in conformity with the requirements of building laws and ordinances, it becomes ministerial on the part of the municipal engineer or the building official to issue the permit. Yet, despite complainant’s submission of all the requirements, respondent refused to issue the fencing permit even after the lapse of a considerable period of time,” read the resolution.

In her complaint affidavit, Alejandra Aleonar alleged that on January 13, 2016, she filed through a representative an application for a permit at the Office of the Building Official to fence her parcel of land in Cogon, Poblacion 1, Carcar City.

Fifteen days had passed and no fencing permit was issued.

In his answer, Calinawan said that on January 14, 2016, Carcar City Councilor Harold Nacua submitted a letter addressed to the Office of the Mayor asking to hold in abeyance the issuance of a fencing permit to Aleonar because there was a pending case pertaining to the road rightof-way that will be affected by the proposed fence.

Allegedly, Nacua’s letter was approved by the city mayor.

With the foregoing facts, De Mira ruled evidence showed Aleonar was able to complete the needed requirements for the issuance of a fencing permit under the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Failure to act on Aleonar’s application despite the lapse of a considerable period of time gave unwarranted benefits or advantage to Calinawan. De Mira said Calinawan’s reliance on the approved stamp of the mayor cannot be considered as sufficient justification for his refusal or inaction on complainant’s application.

“Nacua’s request to hold in abeyance the issuance of the fencing permit was immediately and favorably acted upon by respondent without verifying whether a case involving complainant and Nacua pertaining to the property to be fenced actually exists,” read the resolution, as complainant claimed there was no pending case.

Calinawan, acting as the city’s building official is primarily responsible for the enforcement of the Building Code, its Implementing Rules and Regulations and other related issuances, the issuance of the fencing permit, De Mira stated.