GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc, The Philippine Star, Friday, August 31, 2007
ZTE was the hottest item on talk radio yesterday. Rep. Carlos Padilla the day before had linked Comelec chief Ben Abalos to the shady purchase from the Chinese firm of an exclusive government broadband network. He also had sued for graft Transportation-Communication Sec. Larry Mendoza for a useless but overpriced project. It took little prodding from radio show hosts for the three to amplify their stands on the $330-million (P16-billion) question. Somebody should have warned Abalos and Mendoza that their words can and will be used against them.
Take for instance the matter of the loan signed Saturday from China Eximbank to fund the ZTE supply contract. Interviewed by DZMM’s Ted Failon, Mendoza said the contract indeed rests on that loan, and so they’re working on the requisite approvals from the Monetary Board. But that’s just it, Padilla exclaimed when called after Mendoza’s phone patch ended. Quoting the law from his speech, he said any government loan needs “prior concurrence” by the highest fiscal agency. So why are they securing the clearance only now, after the fact?
Mendoza also said they chose ZTE Corp. of Shenzhen because two competitors with lower bids couldn’t show proof of financial capability. Again that’s just it, Padilla retorted. Make all the competing bid documents public so that experts can say for sure who’s the best. He could have added that the American bidder was to be backed by the US Eximbank, and the Filipino by Huawei Corp., China’s biggest telecoms maker.
Abalos admitted to DZBB’s Ali Sotto and Arnold Clavio that he did go to Shenzhen at least thrice in recent months to play golf with ZTE execs. He had met them through his importer-daughter, and they were discussing investments to develop Mindanao. “Is that a crime?” he intoned. Padilla in turn asked why the Comelec chief would be talking with ZTE when it was already controversial. The Black-and-White Movement for transparency fired off a press statement that during the recent campaign, “the Comelec official should have been busy working to give us the honest and orderly elections we deserve, not running around China.” Can a Comelec officer be doing the job of the executive branch?
The ZTE deal was signed Apr. 21, so Abalos was asked about the illegality of awarding government contracts during the election period — unless there’s a Comelec waiver. The election chief said there was no such waiver. He hastened to add that what was signed was a memorandum of agreement, not a contract (as Mendoza insists).
* * *
Judge Filemon Montenegro sent a reaction to my piece on Naga City Hall being evicted from the land it has occupied for decades (Gotcha, 13 Aug. 2007). He refutes the sworn assertions of witness Ricardo Mejorado to his alleged meeting with a litigant in a Camarines Sur seaside resort. Also, with the insistence of Mayor Jesse Robredo that the land had been donated to the city government. Edited to fit this space:
“Mejorado was a fugitive from justice and while he was hiding in Butuan City, Mayor Robredo admitted in his testimony before Justice Regalado Maambong of the Court of Appeals that he personally went to Butuan for the sole purpose of letting Mejorado sign a prepared sworn statement against me. Robredo admitted he gave Mejorado money. Is this not harboring a criminal? Mejorado retracted his earlier Robredo’s instigated affidavit.
“Mejorado was convicted of bigamy in my sala and Robredo was the wedding sponsor in the bigamous marriage.
“The matters you published violate the rule on sub judice. Simply stated, the public shall not discuss matters in public that are pending before a court. Your article further violates the rule on confidentiality of administrative matters that are pending before the Supreme Court, such as the case filed by Robredo against me. This is for the Court to have a free uninfluenced and unbiased determination of plausible ground to discipline a judge. The proceeding is confidential because the administration of justice is involved and the respondent refers to no ordinary person. I have not yet presented evidence in my defense because Robredo thru his counsel has yet to submit his formal offer of evidence.
“I am attaching the decision in Civil Case 2005-0030, entitled Heirs of Jose Mariano et al. versus City of Naga which explained in detail why the City of Naga lost. It lost because it has no evidence to support its claim of ownership particularly the deed of donation. What was presented by the City of Naga was an unsigned deed of donation. This alleged deed was not even annotated in the title of TCT 671. Further the Clerk of Court of Manila issued a certification that no copy of the said deed of donation was ever submitted to their office by the notary public commissioned by their court. The Records Management and Archives Office also certified that no copy is on file. How could Robredo therefore allege that the deed was lost?
“I am also attaching a copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Supreme Court administrator dated May 24, 2006 detailing why the administrative complained filed by Robredo against me was recommended for dismissal. The affidavit and issue regarding Mejorado was explained point by point by the Court administrator. The recommendation was the basis of the en banc decision date June 27, 2006.”
The decision was to dismiss and terminate the case.
* * *
E-mail:
jariusbondoc@workmail.com
