By Tracy Cabrera
BATASAN, Quezon City — The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has received a request from the Commission on AUDIT (CoA) asking for an investigation into perceived irregularities in the ₱9.97-million flood control project in Albay.
The request was prompted after state auditors flagged the use of funds for the repair and reconstruction of a consolidation dam in Ligao City, where a concrete revetment was built instead.
In a 15-page decision, CoA upheld a 2022 ruling by the Commission’s Region V office on the notice of disallowance it had issued against the regional Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)’s ₱5.77 million payment to construction firm BDL Construction and Supply.
The notice of disallowance held liable BDL Construction and Supply, as well as then-DPWH regional director Danilo Dequito and chief engineer Efren Manalo.
It was in 2012 that the DPWH regional office awarded a contract worth ₱9.97 million to the company for the repair and reconstruction of a consolidation dam and a scoured riverbank at Pinit Foot Bridge in Ligao City.
Both the dam and riverbank were significantly damaged during the onslaught of super typhoon Bebeng (international name Aere) in the previous year.
In 2013, the CoA Regional Technical Services Office conducted a site inspection on the rehab project and found that the consolidation dam had not been rebuilt, even after the contractor said it had finished the project.
This prompted state auditors to issue a notice of disallowance of the ₱5.49 million budget that was assigned to the consolidation dam plus miscellaneous expenses, totaling ₱5.77 million.
Following the notice, CE Manalo filed an appeal since the concrete revetment was built near where the original consolidation dam was supposed to be repaired and reconstructed.
But the agency argued it would be unjust enrichment on the part of the government if the contractor was not paid for this replacement project.
Additionally, the CoA en banc argued that using the consolidation dam project fund for the concrete revetment violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, and the project’s funding source, the 2010 General Appropriations Act, ruling that it was “tantamount to disbursing government funds without a valid appropriation.”
Moreover, state auditors noted that it could have also violated Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code and that there could be a basis to investigate for possible indictment for technical malversation.
ia/xf
