The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) under former Duterte ally Melvin Matibag has launched a probe into the alleged anomalies surrounding the 2019 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games.
Matibag did not name names, but Senator Alan Peter Cayetano reacted during the impeachment trial on Wednesday, July 15 against the NBI’s renewed probe.
Well, he has every right to because he served as the chairperson of the Philippine Southeast Asian Games Organizing Committee (PHISGOC), a private foundation that oversaw the Philippines’ hosting of the biennial games.
“This is not because of renewed interest. It so happened that there were documents which came to light which will lead us to investigate. Whenever any issue involving corruption is brought to us, even ordinary cases, we will investigate. It so happened this is controversial,” said the NBI director in a mix of Filipino and English.
Matibag’s probe will also include a Malaysian company, MTD Capital Berhad, which received P10-billion from government appropriations.
Current Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) chief Vince Dizon was also dragged into this because the office he headed during the Duterte administration, the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), entered into an agreement with the Malaysian firm.
“Once and for all, we want to settle the matter by determining whether anyone should be held accountable or not,” the NBI director added.
Here’s how the SEA Games controversy ended up for Cayetano and Dizon.
Duterte ‘cleared’ Cayetano
Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said on Thursday, July 16 that Dizon was cleared of the allegations after an investigation, while Cayetano was not subjected to a probe.
“Sa ating pagkakaalam, hindi naimbistigahan sila Senator Alan Cayetano, at the time ay speaker of the House. Hindi naimbestigahan ‘yong mga maaaring mabanggit. Dahil sa ating pagkakaalam, ang dating pangulong [Rodrigo] Duterte ay nilinis na agad si Senator Alan Cayetano at the time kahit wala pang umaandar na pag-iimbestiga,” Castro said.
(Based on our knowledge, they did not investigate Senator Alan Cayetano, who was the speaker of the House at the time. They did not probe those who will likely be named. Based on our knowlege, then-president Duterte immediately cleared Senator Alan Cayetano at the time even before the start of a probe.)
Cayetano’s role as PHISGOC chairperson was met with legal concerns because he was still the Department of Foreign Affairs chief when the non-profit organization was registered. Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution states that Cabinet members “shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure.”
A 2019 Rappler investigation showed that Cayetano had at least P6 billion at his disposal – funds that were allocated from one government agency to another within a year.
Around P1.5 billion in public funds for broadcast expenses, talent fees, and other items reportedly did not undergo public bidding. Cayetano defended this, explaining that these were exemptions to the procurement law that requires public bidding. (READ: P1.5 billion worth of SEA Games funds will not undergo public bidding)
“However, they [the funds] are still subject to guidelines of government procedures, particularly during the submission of liquidations,” Cayetano said at the time.
The controversial P50-million cauldron was also questioned under Cayetano’s term. He explained that “it’s a work of art” designed by National Artist for Architecture Francisco “Bobby” Mañosa.
Ombudsman’s resolution on Dizon
In 2020, the Citizens Crime Watch Association filed complaints with the Office of the Ombudsman for graft and malversation against BCDA officials, including Dizon. They were also slapped with administrative complaints for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The BCDA entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with MTD Capital Berhad to establish New Clark City and committed to pay the firm via a five-year annual installment scheme worth P2.2 billion.
The complainants said that if the project was a joint venture, “the private corporation is not guaranteed to earn profits.” For a private firm to earn profit, the project should be in the form of a build-and-transfer scheme.
As said by the government corporate counsel at the time, a build-and-transfer proposal should have undergone public bidding. The New Clark project was awarded to the Malaysian firm through a Swiss challenge or another form of public procurement. (READ: OGCC flagged non-bidding of BCDA’s New Clark sports facilities)
On July 16, the Ombudsman confirmed that the complaints were junked. Former ombudsman Samuel Martires also confirmed to Rappler the complaints’ dismissal.
“Upon checking the records of this case, it appears that the case filed against [Secretary] Vince Dizon, etc. regarding the construction of the sports facilities for the 2019 SEA Games has been dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. This is contained in a joint resolution issued back in December 2021,” Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano told reporters.
In the copy of the 2021 resolution, the Ombudsman cleared Dizon and other respondents due to insufficiency of evidence: “Based on the foregoing disquisitions, together with the documents on record, it is clear that elements 3 and 4 of Section 3(e), RA 3019 are lacking in this case, thus the charge of violation of Section 3(e) against all respondents must be dismissed.”
Athough the first two elements of the anti-graft law’s section 3(g) were present – the accused is a public officer and entered into a transaction on behalf of the government – the third element was not.
This last element was that the transaction was “grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.”
“Although the first two elements are present in these cases, there is no basis to find that the JVA entered into by BCDA and MTD, is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government,” the resolution said.
With respect to the malversation allegation, the Ombudsman said the complaints were dismissed based on the Jacomille v. Abaya and Dela Cruz v. Ochoa cases. There, the Supreme Court said that subsequent appropriation or funding “moots and cures any defect in the lack of appropriation during the procurement stage.”
“Wherefore, the criminal and administrative complaints are dismissed for insufficiency of evidence,” the resolution added. – Rappler.com
How does this make you feel?