Calida denies graft raps over family’s security firm
Solicitor General Jose Calida has denied the graft charges filed against him before the Office of the Ombudsman over multimillion-peso contracts bagged by his family’s security agency with several government agencies.
In a statement released by his office over the weekend, Calida belied the allegation by complainant Jocelyn Nisperos that he violated Republic Act 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, in the contracts of Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency Inc.
(VISAI) with the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC), National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).
The top government lawyer explained that he did not violate the law because he already resigned as president and chairman of VISAI before he assumed office as solicitor general in 2016.
He stressed that Section 9 of RA 6713 requires any public official to avoid any conflict of interest by resigning or divesting interest in any private firms or both within 60 days from assumption of office.
“Clearly then, Solgen Calida complied with Section 9 of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) when he resigned as chairman and president of Vigilant before he assumed office as solicitor general. His interest in Vigilant was stated in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) when he assumed office,” the statement pointed out.
Calida further argued that he did not violate Section 7 of the same law, which prohibits public officials from having financial interest in any transaction requiring approval of their office or owning private firm regulated, supervised or licensed by their office.
“There is no conflict of interest. The contracts between (VISAI) and the NPDC did not require the approval of the OSG. Also, the OSG does not regulate, supervise or license security agencies like Vigilant.”
Calida further explained that all contracts of VISAI underwent public bidding in compliance with RA 9184 (Government Procurement Act).
He revealed that the contract of his security agency with NPDC was awarded in July 2014 or two years before he assumed his post.
“All subsequent contracts with NPDC were obtained through public biddings and were therefore aboveboard,” Calida added.
In her complaint filed with the ombudsman earlier this month, Nisperos submitted Securities and Exchange Commission records showing Calida owns 60 percent of the security firm, while his wife and three children own 10 percent each.
The complainant alleged that Calida’s ownership of VISAI presents a conflict of interest, as defined in RA 6713.
To recall, Nisperos is the same private individual who requested Calida’s office to initiate a quo warranto case against Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, the same way that Calida did in his case against ousted chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.
But Calida rejected the request, citing lack of evidence that De Castro also violated the law by not filing her complete SALNs like Sereno.