The PAGC’s Investigation Office accused the PEA board, among others, of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019), Item IB2 on the organization of the prequalification, bid and award committee of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree 1594, and the construction agreement forged between PEA and projected contractor JD Legaspi Construction on the PDMB, formerly known as the Central Boulevard Road Project.
Among those named in the charge sheet are PEA board of directors chairman Ernesto Villareal; general manager Benjamin Cariño; board members Joemari Gerochi, Martin Sanciego, Rodolfo Tuazon, Angelito Villanueva, and Sulficio Tagud; deputy general managers Manuel Berina Jr., Theron Lacson, and Bernardo Viray; senior corporate attorney Ernesto Enriquez; assistant general manager Jaime Millan; and several John and Jane Does the charge sheet claims are presidential appointees-employees or non-presidential appointees and non-career employees of PEA.
The PAGC acted as the nominal complainant in the absence of a private complainant to file charges.
PAGC chairman Dario Rama explained that the PAGC is allowed to stand as the nominal complainant in a case – in the absence of a private complainant to file charges – under its charter, even if it will also be the one to conduct the investigation and render the recommendation on the case.
The PAGC, Rama said, is an anti-graft office, which can act even on anonymous complaint provided evidence is attached.
However, the PAGC chairman said it would have been easier if there had been a private complainant. Tagud, PDMB scam whistle-blower, could have been the private complainant in the case.
"Even before Tagud, (the) papers on the PEA were already given to us by Chief Legal Counsel Avelino Cruz," the PAGC chairman said. "We have also been talking to Tagud. He said he will talk to his lawyers and submit his evidence to us. (But) we have not heard from him since Oct. 17."
The filing of charges will start an administrative investigation into the activities of these PEA officials related to the case.
"After determination by the PAGC of the existence of prima facie evidence, the PAGC will on its own initiate a complaint against the PEA board," Rama said.
The PAGC noted in its formal charge that PEA officials committed a patent violation of the construction agreement when "all additional works ... were performed/executed and completed without the condition sine qua non approval of the President."
The PEA allegedly approved the additional contract price adjustment to JD Legaspi Construction with a total amount of P42,418,493.64; the updated cost of Variation Order No. 2 totaling to P126,440,810.20; and variation order/no. 4 amounting to some P4,759,630.80 for additional items of work and P79,332,524.08 for the Final Bill of Quantities.
"The respondents’ obvious criminal intent to cause damage to government is manifested by the fact that the original price of P584,365,885.05 is beyond the official estimate of the (Department of Public Works and Highways) on the cost per square meter and/or linear meter for road and bridge construction, which was furnished the Commission," said Imelda Dangoy, OIC director of the PAGC Investigation Office.
PEA authorized payment and has actually paid JD Legaspi Construction the total amount of P816,006,251.93, Dangoy said.
The PAGC also noted that PEA’s creation of an ad hoc committee responsible for the bidding and the award of the construction instead of a PBAC was a violation of the law.