By
Joel R. San Juan - February 14, 2018
THE Office of
the Ombudsman has recommended the filing of graft charges against the former
general manager of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and his assistant in
connection with the alleged anomalous renewal of DMCI’s port permit in Barangay
Bolitoc, Santa Cruz, Zambales, whose mining operations were previously
suspended for environmental concerns.
In a resolution
released to the media on Wednesday, the Ombudsman found merit to the
complaint filed by Agham Party-list, through its president Angelo Palmones,
against former PPA General Manager and lawyer Juan Sta. Ana and former PPA
Assistant General Manager Raul Santos.
The Ombudsman, however,
cleared of any liability officials of DMCI led by Isidro Consunji, chairman and
president of DMCI Holdings Inc.; DMCI Mining Corp. Rodolfo Cabuary, liaison
manager/representative of DMCIHI; Cesar Simbulan Jr., president and COO of
DMCIMC; and Herbert M. Consuji, vice president and CFO of DMCIHI.
The Ombudsman found
probable cause to indict Sta. Ana and Santos for violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act 3019, before the Sandiganbayan.
“The public
respondents, with manifest partiality [and] evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence, gave unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference
to DMCIMC as…shown in their inaction on complainant’s letters to them,” the
11-page resolution approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio- Morales read.
The Ombudsman noted
that Sta. Ana ignored complainant’s letters, informing him of the irregularity
in the issuance of DMCIMC’s port permit and demanding its cancellation and
revocation.
Agham accused the two
former PPA officials of a proving the renewal of DMCI’s port
permit despite the absence of mandatory requirements, particularly the
Foreshore Lease Agreement as provided for by PPA rules and regulations.
The group said such an
agreement would be impossible to be executed in favor of DMCI considering
that the land directly butting its lot is not foreshore but a land formation
that was cut through by DMCIMC.
Since there is no
foreshore area directly abutting DMCIMC’s lot, then DMCIMC cannot be considered
a littoral/riparian owner and should not have been allowed to operate a
port.
The Ombudsman did not
give weight to the claim of the respondents that a mere application for a
foreshore lease agreement with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources is sufficient to grant the port permit.
While the respondents
argue that a foreshore lease application and payment of occupancy fees are
sufficient for the renewal of DMCIMC’s port permit, the Ombudsman said, they
were not able to fully explain why the port permit was renewed on the
basis only of the miscellaneous lease application and payment of occupancy
fees, in clear violation of PPA rules and regulations.
“Public respondents’
claim that DMCIMC’s foreshore lease application was converted to a
miscellaneous lease application is not supported by the records and does not
justify the deviation from the PPA rules and regulations on the issuance and renewal
of port permits,” the Ombudsman stated.
“In fact, the records
show that DMCIMC’s foreshore lease application had already expired and that a
separate miscellaneous lease application has been filed thereafter, thereby
negating respondents’ claim,” the Ombudsman added.
No comments:
Post a Comment