Fr- dre

WREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINIS

oFFrcE OFTHE OMBUDSMAN (VTSAYAS)Department of Agriculture RO-7 Compound, M. Yelez St., Guadalupe, 6000 Cebu City

MANUEL P. MEIORADAComplainant,

-versus- oMB-V-C-11-0467-HoMB-V-A- 1 1-O552-H

JED PATRICK MABILOGCity Mayor (SG-30)Iloilo City

ResPondent.x-------- ------------ I

CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT

This is a criminal complaint for Violations of Sections 3(e)

and (g) of R.A. 3019, as alnended, otherwise known as the "Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act", as well as an administrative

complaint for Grave Misconduct against respondent JED PATRICK

MABILOG, Ciry Mayor, Iloilo City, filed by MANUEL P. MEJORADA.

Complainant filed this case in his capacity as a tu*{^yrr. He

based his complaint on the observation of the Commission on

Audit (COA) in its 2010 Annual Audit Report, particularly on the

Detailed Findings and Recommendation, Item No. 14 and its

subparagraphsl, which indicated that the City of Iloilo could have

strategized control measures to lessen expenditures on garbage

disposal which amounted to P69,67O,370.93 during the year or

the city could have intensified collection of garbage fees with the

end in view of improving the delivery of public service at a

1 D.-o.7-Q rarnrdc

I

c,o@.H,,..-ruelorada Etu!x----------

minimumffipmfr," t&,O0ffi &tur"uud Uhd

*nrmorrrt of P69,67O,37O.93 on

services, rental of equipment for

<=:*,;.:= -:: :,:- I l-,:I ijittl]

the CifJ" of Iloilo .p".ri-^-L^__==rltag: collection and transport

lr-*TJ1 ,r{ ri," f"*;J ij-l1 -l-:,::-_:-_

CoA further observed that in comp".i.o" to the income realized

from garbage fees amounting to P2S ,447 ,O7 3 .Og , the actua-l

reveniues co;ecied ror ixe pwpclse: th,at u:hr :uuucme d" uhe M$Fund teahzed from other sources was utilized to cover the

deficiency; and, that on the average the concerned LGU (local

Complainant opined that the foregoing observation of the

coA showed respondent's gross negiigence rn asce::a,:l::ri :::).:

re\-enues lror11 garbage -re s -,r.-::: -:^- l::-. s=: ;-:_-: :;: *:=:

e-xreni.iru:es o:i :-:e ::i:e; st:.-i::s- s*l:t =a-- ::-:,c :-::::s :i:a:

couid har-e been u-.i.Lizeci ior rita-t ser,-:ces such as iiea--r-: ar:a

education were siphoned to this account, and in the process, the

ordinary citizens were deprived of basic services because of

inefficiency and u,astefuiness on the part of the LGU (1oca1

government unit) under the management and administration of

respondent.

nn

II

I

CONSOLIDATED EVALUANON REPORTMejorada vs. Mabilogx-------------- ---------------/

The coA in the same report, Iikewise, observed that the

monitoring of the volume of the garbage collected and d.isposed at

the Calajunan Dumpsite by the contractor was not stipulated in

the contract for information purposes, which information is crucial

in the evaluation of the reasonableness of the contract cost in

relation to the stipulated 78 daily trips of the dump and compactor

trucks of the contractor.

Complainant agreed with the observation of the COA that

with the introduction of the waste reduction programs and

campaigns of the government and non-governmental organization,

as well as environment-friendly initiatives of business

establishments, the volume of the garbage is expected to decrease

and the multiple trips from various designated collection points

and materials recovery facilities maybe lumped into one single trip,

thus, reducing the number of trips per day and the related costs.

Complainant stressed that the failure of respondent to insist on

the transparency in the said contract was contributory to the

wastage of public funds.

Complainant pointed out the recommendation of COA that

the City of Iloilo should ensure that the procurement process

should promote competition through sufficient publicity in order to

antobtain the most advantageous price for the LGUi|JlitLt,til Iriir oaliGtr,Al

I

iy*ypR I

LTJN)GTI-I1,AIt,U TVALIJAIruN fiEI'I'T{I -

Mejorada vs. Mabilogx-------------- ------------/believed that such recommendation was related to the issue of

transparency or the lack of it as the COA apparently was bothered

by its findings that the individual contracts on (i) garbage

collection and transport services, (ii) rental equipment for dozrr:rg,

leveling, and compacting or garbage and soil cover; and (iii) loading

and hauling of soil cover of garbage at Calajunan Dumpsite were

all awarded to Single Calculated Responsive Bidder.

Complainant emphastzed that respondent received a copy of

the COA Annual Audit Report for the year 2010 sometime in the

first week of June 2OLL. Yet, despite receipt of the COA Report,

respondent did not take any action to stop the financial losses

incurred by the city. Complainant stressed that as a newspaper

writer, he was able to publish on July 7 and July 8,2011 a two-

part series of articles about the garbage problems of the city and

its huge financial losses. Again, respondent did not take any step

to address the problems to prevent further the city's financial

losses. Complainant alleged that over the last several days, he

heard radio reports about uncollected garbage that were piled in

the streets of Iloilo City for several days, which could only mean

that the garbage contractor was not fulfilling its daiiy obligation to

collect the garbsg€, especially in the business district of the city.

Complainant opined that such situation could result to the

contracted number of trips to be surreptitiously cut, thereby

F TvTer0ra,Ca vS- MitDlIO$. :

x_---__________ ____--_______l i

resulting in further damage to

the stipulated number of trips

trips were actually 1ess.

Upon evaluation of the complaint, this

the main bases of the herein complaint

the City of Iloilo, as it would pay for

per day while the actual number of

Complainant was of the belief that the foregoing acts of

respondent caused undue injury to the city government and its

constituents and his continued negligence or failure to rectify such

problems would only cause more undue injury to the city

government and its constituents. Complainant also claimed that

respondent, as the local chief executive, entered into a contract or

transaction with the garbage contractor which is manifestly

disadvantageous to the city government in violation of Section 3(S)

of R.A. 3019, as amended. Further, complainant made it of

emphasis that the foregoing acts of respondent ran counter to the

provision of Section 4 (a) of R.A. 6713, which mandates public

officials and employees to employ and use efficiently, effectively,

honestly and economically all government resources and powers of

their respective offices, particularly to avoid wastage in public

funds and resources.

DISCUSSION:

Office observes that

IIE ORiSINAL

Oq$AYOR.4s$i;iani lV

Chlil iFir[ ti;t-rt:

ll,{:!'1i*.str31:i 15

coNSoLtDATED EVALUATTON REPORT ,

Mejorada vs. Mabilogx-------------- -------------lobservations of the COA in its Annual Audit Report for Iloilo City

as regards the city's expenditures on garbage collection and

disposal activities for Fiscal Year 2010. Complainant also based

his complaint on respondent's alleged failure to take any step to

address the problem to prevent further financial losses despite

being made aware of the same.

The present complaint, however, was filed ^{ by the COA,

but by complainant in his capacity as a taxpayer. This Office

observes that in support of the complaint, the entire COA Report

was nfi. attached thereto, but only 2 pages thereof, particularly,

pages 23 and 24 of the said COA Report. The attached pages show

the following observations of the COA: that the city spent

P69,67O,37O.93 on garbage collection and transport services,

rental of equipment for dozing, leveling and compacting of garbage

and soil cover, and loading and hauling of soil cover at Calajunan

Dumpsite; that the income reaJized from the garbage fees

amounted only to P25,447,O73.O9, thus, the actual expenditure

exceeded by P44,223,297.84 or 173.79o/o of the revenues collected

for the purpose; that the income of the General Fund realized from

other sources was utilized to cover the deficiency; that on the

average, the concerned LGU (local government unit) is spending

P190,877.72 per day for garbage; that the individual contracts on

(i) garbage collection and transport services, (ii) rental equip_m_e"I**"

F

|:.'.

CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT 7

Mejorada vs. Mabilogx-------------- -----------------l

for dozing, leveling, and compacting or garbage and soil cover, and

(iii) loading and hauling of soil cover of garbage at Calajunan

Dumpsite were awarded to a single calculated responsive bidder;

and that, public compl.iri and inquiries on collection of garbage

by the contractor were not stipulated in the contract. However,

the ind.ividual contracts referred to in the said COA Report, as well

as the bidding documents are not attached to the complaint. The

bidding documents and the individual contracts are necessary for

this Office's determination whether or not the said individual

contracts entered into by the Iloilo City Government were, indeed,

grossly disadvantageous to the city. This Office, also has to

determine whether there have been some violations when the

foregoing individual contracts were awarded to one single

responsive bidder. Moreover, let it be of emphasis that while the

contracts were entered into by the Iloilo City Government, the

awarding of the same to one bidder could not simply be attributed

to respondent City Mayor. Necessarily, the bidding process is

primarily conducted by the Bids and Awards Committee.

Ordinarily, this Office would have required complainant to

submit before this Office the documents mentioned in his

complaint but which he failed to attached thereto. However, in the

herein case, the basis of the complaint is a copy of some pages of

the COA Report. A11 other documents that are nec€*?"Hn,rr?#ki

CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT 8

Mejorada vs. Mabilogx-------------- ----------------lproper determination of the herein case are understandably not in

complainant's official custody. Thus, considering the gravity of the

charge as it involved not only a seeming enormous wastage of

public funds, but also possible yiolation of the Government

Procurement Reform Act (R.A. 9184), the conduct of a fact-finding

investigation would be in order, for the purpose of gathering

related documents and for the purpose of charging all responsible

officials, as the evidence may warrant.

Moreover, this office is guided by the principle laid down in

the case of LIBRADO M. CABRERA, ET. AL. vs. HoN. SIMEON v.

MARCELO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ET.AL.2, which

provides that:

,r''xxx the Office of the Ombudsman should exercise

"o/tton when it utilizes findings o/ the COA in support of

its' d.etermination of probable cause as the prelude to thefiling of a criminal complaint against a public official. TheCOA is not the inuestigatory atrn of the Ombudsman; thus,the auditor's preliminary findings of discrepancies do notnecessarilg equate to a finding of probable cause, uthichhas to be independentlg established by the Ombudsman.Many conclusions dranan from audit reports hinge ontechnical matters of appreciation and maa be satisfactoritgclarified bg discusslons between the coA and the publicoffi.cer. The Ombudsman should refrain from committingundue haste in prosecuting public officials based on COAaudit reports, and instead make an independentdetermination of his own on the existence of probabtecause that a giuen public official has committed a penallau uiolation before proceeding with the instihttion of thecriminal case.xxx"

-*.*-s;:;;;;ilfiffi t $ {rfr **

p;r"J'rr4.ffiffi1--'

FFEE.E

t:

CONSOLIDATED EVALUATION REPORT

Mejorada vs. Mabilogv-------------- -----------------ln ----- - I

WHEREFORO, foregoing premises considered, it

respectfully recommended that a fact finding investigation be

forthwith conducted relative to the issues raised therein and that

these cases be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED, without

is

prejudice,.

SO BVALUATED,

Cebu City, Philippines, October 28, 2OlL.

Grafi Inuestig-ation and Proseantion Officer I

p',

VIRGINIA PAssistant

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:

.SANTIAGO /dsmanotfzvfr,

//"{

Deputg Os

uds n for the

APPROVED/ffi:

"/--/

TAYAD-DE MIRA

Omhttdsmfln

Visayas