Three City Engineers to Ombuds: Don’t condone defective project

CEBU, Philippines - The three Cebu City engineers that the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas ordered to be suspended for allegedly demanding gadgets for personal use from a contractor yesterday claimed that suspending them would tantamount to condoning the defective works of the complainant.

Assistant city engineer June Nadine Sison, Juanito Pua, Jr., and Joel Pasatiempo have been ordered to be placed under six months preventive suspension on charges of graft, grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of government employees for allegedly asking a brand new computer and a “high-tech” camera from Robert Montenegro.

The anti-graft office’s order has yet to be implemented by Mayor Michael Rama. The mayor referred the order to the city attorney’s office for their opinion considering that the respondents have filed a motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman.

The three engineers denied the accusations of Montenegro. According to them, it was a market official who allegedly demanded it being part of a contract requirement.

The respondents claimed that the anti-graft investigators have committed grave and reversible errors on its findings that the evidence of guilt against them is strong without first examining the both testimonial and documentary evidence of the parties concerned.

According to the respondents, had they been allowed by graft investigators to present their side before making recommendations they could have established all facts to refute the bare allegations of the complainant.

The three engineers said that Montenegro was just harassing them with fabricated charges hoping that they will change their decision not to release the P150,000 representing the 10 percent retention of his alleged defective project in Barangay Adlaon.

Several photographs of the alleged defective project of Montenegro have already been furnished to the Ombudsman. The three engineers have also asked the anti-graft investigators to conduct ocular inspection of the project.

“What the respondents did was only to uphold the law and to protect the city on poorly made projects. By ordering the preventive suspension of the respondents, this honorable office is impliedly condoning the faulty construction works of the complainant,” the three engineers said.

About the computer and the camera that Montenegro claimed they have demanded, the respondents said it was really market supervisor Lilianita Gucela who did it because these were part of the components of another project undertaken by the complainant.

 In fact, the demand was recorded in the minutes of the meeting conducted on February 20, 2012.

“It is contrary to norms and ordinary human conduct to commit graft in the presence of other individuals and during official meeting,” they said. — (FREEMAN)