FORMER Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) director Eduardo Gongona, two officials of the Department of Agriculture and two private individuals have been ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman to answer allegations in a complaint filed against them last year alleging multiple violations of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In a three-page directive issued last month, the acting director of the Ombudsman’s Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau-F (PIAB-F) gave the five respondents 10 days from receipt of the order to file their respective counter-affidavits addressing the allegations in the complaint.
The case, docketed as OMB-C-C-Mar-23-0046, was filed on March 1, 2022 by lawyer James Mier Victoriano alleging irregularities in the P2.09 billion Integrated Marine Environment Monitoring System (IMEMS) project that was awarded to a foreign contractor in October 2018.
Aside from Gongona, also named co-respondents were former DA-BFAR Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) officers Demosthenes Escoto and Hansel Didulo.
Included as private respondents were Simon Tucker and Richard Hurd, both of SRT Marine Systems Solutions Ltd., the firm that won the IMEMS contract.
IMEMS require all commercial fishing vessels to install a monitoring system that would show their location along with support vessels while at sea, thereby improving BFAR’s Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) program.
Victoriano said the IMEMS was supposed to be funded by a loan from the French government and had a P1.6 billion approved budget for the contract (ABC) but with a rider that the bidders must be French or a joint venture involving a French firm.
He said the DA-BFAR eventually declared SRT the winning bidder only for the French government to declare it ineligible later as a British company.
In another bidding in 2018, SRT again won but the project’s approved budget has increased to P2.09 billion with local funding.
The complainant sought indictments against the respondents for violations of Sections 3(e), 3(g), and 3(j) of Republic Act (RA) 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Sections 30, 34, 65(c), and 65(d) of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act; and Section 23.6 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of RA 9184.
Victoriano’s camp also noted that the contract appears no longer effective since the notice to proceed was December 4, 2018 with an expiry date set on December 4, 2021.
In its directive, the Ombudsman required each respondent to attach the affidavits of their witnesses and other supporting evidence in their counter-affidavits.
They were also notified to furnish the complainant a copy of their submissions with proof of service.
Non-compliance with the timetable will be deemed a waiver of their right to submit controverting evidence while investigation will proceed until submitted for resolution.
The Ombudsman reminded the parties that it will not entertain any motion to dismiss, motion for bill of particulars, or any other motion that can delay the investigation.
