Bohol lawmaker asks Sandiganbayan to dismiss his graft case

Bohol Rep. Rene Relampagos has asked the Sandiganbayan First Division to dismiss the graft case filed against him by the Office of the Ombudsman last month in connection with the alleged disadvantageous privatization of the province’s electric and water utilities in 2000.

In a 31-page omnibus motion filed with the anti-graft court on Monday, a copy of which was released to the media on Tuesday, Relampagos said the Ombudsman violated his constitutional right to due process for taking more than a decade to resolve the complaint against him.

“With the capricious, vexatious, oppressive, and unjustified delay miring the Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution of this case…it is undeniable that accused’s constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been violated,” Relampagos, through his legal counsels, said in a motion.

In 2000, Relampagos served as Bohol governor. 

Relampagos and 15 other officials of Bohol provincial government, including Gov. Edgar Chatto, are facing violation of Section 3 (g) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for selling the capitol-owned Provincial Electric System (PES) and Provincial Water System (PWS) to a private company at supposedly very low prices.

Section 3(g) of RA 3019 prohibits the act of entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous" to the government, "whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.”

The case stemmed from a complaint filed before the Ombudsman in 2000 by lawyers belonging to the Association of Concerned Tagbilaranons (ACT), including former acting Bohol Gov. Victor de la Serna.

Probable cause

In 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint “for lack of probable cause,” but incumbent Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered a reinvestigation in August 2014.

In June of this year, the Ombudsman found probable cause to pursue charges against the respondents, which led to the formal filing of the case before the Sandiganbayan on October 13.

“There is no justification for this delay. To begin with, the Ombudsman already took eight long years to render the first resolution dismissing the complaint against accused,” Relampagos’ motion read.

“Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the Resolution approved by the Acting Ombudsman on July 2, 2008 was void, as the Ombudsman claimed, the six long years for it to render a new resolution is clearly unreasonable and unjustified, and a direct affront of Accused’s right under the Constitution,” Relampagos added.

Relampagos cited in his motion two previous Supreme Court rulings, in which the high tribunal dismissed the cases against the defendants due to the Ombudsman’s failure to render a decision on the charges for more than six years.

Relampagos further claimed that the reversal of the 2008 resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing the case against him was “disturbing” as the Ombudsman supposedly did not even bother to explain in its new resolution why it suddenly found probable cause to file charges against him, when in fact, no motion was filed by the complainants calling for the reinvestigation of the complaint.

“The Ombudsman did not, however, bother to discuss the materiality of the pieces of evidence and how these evidence show the existence of probable cause,” Relampagos’ motion read.

“At the very least, the Ombudsman should have explained what particular piece or pieces of evidence showed the grossly disadvantageous terms of the government or how the alleged new pieces of evidence compelled it to reverse the exhaustive discussion in the 2008 Resolution which was already final and executory,” the motion added.

Relampagos also disputed the Ombudsman’s allegation that the joint venture agreement (JVA) entered into with the private corporation Salcon Consortium was grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Based on the information of the case, the assets and franchise of the Provincial Electric System (PES) was transferred to the Salcon Power Consortium for only P75 million while assets and franchise of the Provincial Water System (PWS) was transferred to the Salcon Water Consortium for only P80 million, for a total sale of only P155 million.

The Ombudsman said the sale of the PES and PWS to Salcon was “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government” as the two utilities has a combined value of P782 million.

However, in his motion, Relampagos, pointed out that the Ombudsman’s valuation of the capitol-owned utilities was erroneous as it failed to deduct the amounts of losses and “ongoing concerns” of the two utilities at the time of their privatization.

Relampagos said that based on the report of the Asian Appraisal Company, Inc (AACI) which the provincial government commissioned to appraise the assets of the two utilities before it entered into the JVA with Salcon Consortium in 2000, the PES and PWS had an “ongoing concerns” amounting to P126 million and P236 million, respectively.

“From the AACI report, it is clear that Bohol’s water and electric systems at the time of their privatization were not at all profitable…It was therefore erroneous for the Honorable Ombudsman to conclude that Salcon’s total bid price of P150,000,000 is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government,” Relampagos said.

Pending the First Division’s resolution of his motion, Relampagos prayed to the court to defer the issuance of any arrest warrant against him. — RSJ, GMA News