Mayor Navarosa Denies Allegations Vehemently

By Ambrosio Villorente

“There us no iota of evidence. . . any semblance of authority for this complainant . . . to be entertained by the Honorable Ombudsman. All evidences are inadmissible, hearsay and without any semblance of credibility. It does not show any motive whatsoever. . .that could have possibly interfered with said transaction. . .” This is the response of Libacao Mayor Charito I. Navarosa to the complaint lodged against him and 15 others, most of whom are employees of the Local Government of Libacao.
Ms. Rizalina Lil R. Guevara–Dianco filed her complaint with the Ombudsman (Visayas) for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, specifically Section 3 (b) (c) and 3 (e) corrupt practices of public officers; for directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit and for causing any injury to any party.
Ms. Guevara-Dianco alleged she represents Chiara Construction which is one of the bidders for the construction of a River Construction Revetment Wall in the Municipality of Libacao. However, after submitting its bid and thorough evaluation of all the bids submitted, the Bids and Awards Committee chaired by Alex E. Dionela awarded the project to M.G. Salazar Construction Corporation.
In her complaint, Rizalina Lil R. Guevara–Dianco alleged Mayor Charito I. Navarosa and 15 others had committed violation of anti-graft and corrupt practices law. Guevara-Dianco claimed she represents the Chiara Construction which has submitted a much lower bid of P34,608,908.29 than the winning bidder of P40,431,955.11 of M.G. Salazar which is higher than P5,823,046.82.
In his counter affidavit submitted on September 28, 2007 to the Ombudsman (Visayas), Cebu City, Mayor Charito I. Navarosa vehemently denied the allegations stated in the complaint filed by Ms. Rizalina Lil R. Guevara-Dianco. Likewise, the 15 others implicated in the same complaint strongly denied the accusation.
For one, Libacao Mayor Navarosa and Alex Dionela, chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee told the Ombudsman, Guevara-Dianco does not have any legal personality to represent, act or speak in behalf of the losing bidder, Chiara Construction as she does not have any board resolution to empower her to file such complaint for and in behalf of the said construction corporation.
The complaint is quite malicious as “she has impleaded several respondents who should not” as they did not have any participation on the matter. Mayor Navarosa denied any knowledge of the alleged meeting at Zapa Bar, Kalibo where the complainant alleged she was offered P2 million for her to withdraw the bid of the Chiara Construction for the project.
Moreover, Mayor Navarosa claimed he has neither hand on the bidding and awarding process of the project nor influence whatsoever on the bids and awards committee as the chairman and members are all civil service employees who have security of tenure and could not be persuaded to commit illegal acts.
Mayor Navarosa explained the bidding and awarding processes as prescribed by the World Bank which finances the project is strictly and religiously complied with.
The answer of Mayor Navarosa are all corroborated by all the 15 other accused. All the answers stated by the respondents are duly supported by documents enclosed in their counter affidavits.
In the joint counter affidavit of Mr. Alex E. Dionela, chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee and all the members of the committee, they said “we merely observed the Logofind Procurements Manual in the awarding of government contracts. . .particularly in the construction of the River Protection Revetment Wall”.
The rejection, even if it is the lowest bidder, of the Chiara Construction was based on the findings appearing in the Bid Evaluation Report stating therein the comparative track records of all the bidders which Chiara Construction in the Post Qualification Evaluation Report failed because it has no track record in constructing similar projects. . .similar in nature and complexity to the aforesaid project”.
Likewise, Phesco Incorporated and PERRC Construction Development Corporation also failed in the same Post Qualification Evaluation for similar reasons. It was only the M.G. Salazar Construction Corporation which qualified in the said evaluation. Hence, the award of the project to M.G. Salazar. The award to the said construction firm was reviewed by the Department of Finance and the World Bank, the chairman and members of the Libacao LGU Bids and Awards Committee stressed. They pointed out, “the awarding of contract (revetment project) to M.G. Salazar Construction is in order and proper, hence, the complaint filed by (Ms.) Rizalina lil R. Guevara–Dianco has no legal basis whatsoever.” /MP