Contractor to appeal Sandigan ruling vs 12 ex-PEA execs

MANILA, Philippines - A contractor of the President Diosdado Macapagal Highway in Pasay and Parañaque denied allegations of overprice in the construction of the road that now serves as the gateway to Pagcor Entertainment City.

In a press statement yesterday, Enrico Garcia, chief operating officer of J.D. Legaspi Construction, said they would appeal the Sandiganbayan ruling that found 12 former Public Estates Authority (PEA) executives and a JDLC executive guilty of graft over alleged overpricing in the construction of a 2.3-kilometer section of the highway.

Garcia said documents that formed the basis for the anti-graft court’s Feb. 5 decision and an April 2003 audit report from the Commission on Audit (COA) show that there was no overpricing.

“We are taking exception to the media presentation of the case made by assistant ombudsman Asyrman Rafanan who claimed that JDLC got a P837-million windfall from the project,” he said.

Rafanan announced the Sandiganbayan ruling in a press briefing on Thursday.

Garcia said the supposed overprice, as claimed by complainant Sulpicio Tagud Jr., did not occur in the construction of the 2.3-kilometer section of the Macapagal Highway, but for additional work or “variation order” on the Seaside Driveway connecting Macapagal Highway and Roxas Boulevard.

He cited the findings on April 21, 2003 of an audit team led by State Auditor IV Elizabeth Savella that showed that the total project cost, including price adjustments, is reasonable.

He said the project was in accordance with the approved design, scope of work and plans and specifications.

Garcia said the issue stemmed from the comparison made by the complainant on the cost of the other segments on Macapagal Highway – which spans 5.1 kilometers – done by other contractors.

He said there should be no comparison since JDLC introduced additional layers – geotextile and geogrid materials, sand and asphalt overlays – adding the other firms worked on different soil conditions.

“The findings of the accused COA officials that the total project cost, including the price adjustments, was reasonable and, therefore, not overpriced were affirmed by the subsequent COA special audit report,” Garcia quoted the anti-graft court’s ruling.

While the court said there was no conspiracy between Legaspi and PEA, the former was held liable for constructing the Seaside Driveway without the assurance that he would be paid and without necessary approval from the Office of the President before beginning work.