Vitangcol wants affidavits of Abaya, other DOTC execs presented in court 

Former Metro Rail Transit (MRT) general manager Al Vitangcol III has asked the Sandiganbayan to order the Office of the Ombudsman to produce the copies of the affidavits of several officials of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), which would supposedly prove that there was nothing irregular with the awarding of contract for the maintenance of MRT Line 3.

In a motion submitted to the Sandiganbayan Third Division on Monday, Vitangcol pointed out that there were 15 DOTC officials included in the preliminary investigation of the Ombudsman on the alleged anomaly in the awarding of MRT 3 maintenance deal, and yet, all of them were not included in the cases filed in December 2015 before the Sandiganbayan.

“During the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, 15 other officials of the Department of Transportation and Communications were initially charged but were subsequently acquitted except for accused Vitangcol,” the motion, personally written by Vitangcol, read.

Vitangcol said that among those included in the Ombudsman’s investigation were Transportation Secretary Joseph Emilio Abaya, Assistant Secretaries Ildefonso Patdu and Dante Lantin, and Undersecretaries Rene Limcaoco, Jose Perpetuo Lotilla, and Rafael Antonio Santos.

Vitangcol said since he is aware that the counter-affidavits of these DOTC officials would serve as a “material evidence” for his cases before the Sandiganbayan, he had earlier requested for copies of them from the Office of the Ombudsman “but to no avail.”

“The Ombudsman deliberately and maliciously withheld the said affidavits, all to the detriment of the herein accused,” Vitangcol said.

“Said affidavits would show that the innocence of accused Vitangcol and negate the wrongful accusations of the Ombudsman,” he added.

Vitangcol and five incorporators of Philippine Trans Rail Management and Services Corporation (PH Trams) are facing cases of violation of Sections 3 (e) and 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 65 of Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act in connection with the alleged anomalous awarding of MRT 3 maintenance contract in October 2012.

Under the contract, the MRT was set to pay PH Trams and its joint venture Comm Builders and Technology Philippines Corporation (CB&T) $1.15 million monthly for its maintenance.

Based on the information of the cases, Vitangcol “unlawfully” used his position, as the general manager of MRT, head of the DOTC-MRT Negotiating Team, and member of the MRT Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), in recommending the awarding of the maintenance contract to PH Trams-CB&T “despite having a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in PH Trams.”

The Ombudsman said the awarding of the contract should not have been allowed under RA 9184 as one of the PH Trams incorporators, Arturo Soriano, is the uncle of Vitantgcol’s wife.

Instead, the Ombudsman alleged that Vitangcol and his co-accused intentionally hid his affinitive relation with Soriano as its disclosure would have automatically disqualified the company from the bidding.

But in his motion, Vitangcol pointed out that in the counter-affidavit of Abaya submitted to the Ombudsman, the latter supposedly maintained that the contract was above board and that he was the one who signed it as well as the Notice of Award to PH Trams.

Vitangcol said Abaya also maintained in his counter-affidavit “that the DOTC and MRT 3 had no choice but to enter into a negotiated procurement, that the BAC (Bids and Awards Committee) and the Negotiating Team followed the proper procedure and complied with all the requirements under the appropriate rules, and that no law was violated when the award was made to PH Trams CB&T.”

Meanwhile, Vitangcol said DOTC legal officer Geronimo Quintos, in his counter-affidavit, supposedly maintained that the DOTC-MRT 3 Negotiating Team was created pursuant to a resolution approved by the DOTC-BAC and that “Vitangcol did not dictate the composition of the Negotiating Team.”

Vitangcol further claimed that Negotiating Team members Misael Narca, Joel Magbanua, Arnel Manresa and Natividad Sansolis, in their respective affidavits, also maintained that he had “no hand” in the creation of the Task Force ordered to study the MRT 3 maintenance project and that the Task Force’s report embodied in Memorandum dated Oct. 8, 2012 recommending the awarding of the project to PH Trams CB&T was submitted as a report of a collegial body.

Vitangcol also maintained that he had no had in the extension of the MRT 3 maintenance contract with PH Trams pointing out that Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) administrator Honorito Chaneco supposedly admitted in his affidavit that he was the one who signed the BAC Resolution and Notice of Award for the extension of the contract.

Further, Vitangcol said that in DOTC Assistant Secretary Patdu’s affidavit, the latter also attested that PH Trams CB&T was found compliant with the technical, legal and financial eligibility requirements for the project.

Vitangcol said that in a separate affidavit, DOTC Undersecretary Lotilla said that despite the fact that the DOTC-MRT 3 earlier decided to enter in a negotiated procurement, which allows them to negotiate to just one qualified contractor, the BAC still entertained offers from three contractors before the project was eventually awarded to PH Trams CB&T.

Vitangcol further claimed that in DOTC Undersecretary Santos’ affidavit, the latter attested that the approval of the contract was done after consultation with the DOTC’s legal service and procurement service, which supposedly both concluded that the maintenance of MRT can be considered a matter of emergency which warranted the DOTC-MRT 3 to enter into a negotiated procurement.

“Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Office of the Special Prosecutor be directed to produce and allow the copying of the mentioned counter-affidavits, which are material evidence relative to the instant case,” Vitangcol said.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is the prosecution arm of the Office of the Ombudsman. — RSJ, GMA News