IGNORE the requirement on public bidding in government contracts at your own risk.
The Sandiganbayan issued this warning to public officials as it affirmed the graft conviction of former Tourism Secretary Joseph “Ace” Durano and five other former officials of the Department of Tourism (DOT) in connection with a P2.7 million procurement contract in 2008.
In its 20-page resolution dated January 18, 2002, the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division denied motions for reconsideration filed by the defendants, saying their decision to ignore the provisions of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA) showed “zero compliance” with the law.
“The Court reminds herein accused that what they committed was not a simple mistake or misstep. Total non-compliance with the GPRA cannot in any way be considered as minute mistakes or mere lapses,” the Sandiganbayan declared.
Based on the information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2019, Durano was charged with giving unwarranted benefits or preference to PDP Digital Inc, which was awarded the P2.7 million contract for the delivery of the 2009 DOT wall calendar without public bidding.
Named co-defendants were Undersecretary and Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) chairman Oscar Palabyab and BAC members Grace Yoro, Eduardo Jarque Jr., Evelyn Cajigal, and Adriana Flor.
In their appeal, the other DOT officials, except for Jarque, assigned all the blame on the former DOT chief, saying he unilaterally entered into a memorandum of agreement with PDP Digital without referring the project to the BAC.
Durano and Jarque, on the other hand, invoked good faith, saying they merely relied on the agency’s marketing team that evaluate the proposal of project bidders which is supposedly a long-standing practice in the DOT.
They added the contract was fulfilled since the items purchased were duly delivered without any allegation of overpricing or personal gain on the part of the accused.
Likewise, they cited the dismissal by the Ombudsman of all charges pertaining to GPRA.
The court, however, noted the Ombudsman’s finding was limited to a clarification that the acts alleged in the complaint did not violate the penal provisions of RA 9184.
It added that the Ombudsman’s rulings are not binding upon the court.
