Government corporate counsel Jurado denies wrongdoing

MANILA, Philippines — Government Corporate Counsel Rudolf Philip Jurado said yesterday he would abide by the decision of President Duterte to remove him from his post.

“I accept and respect our President’s decision. As an appointee who serves under his pleasure, I am honored to have been given a chance to serve under his administration,” he said in a text message.

He opted not to add to his statement after the President’s decision. 

Jurado has denied allegations against him, which he said were invented by his subordinates affected by reforms he implemented in the office – especially in relation to excess allowances they received that have been flagged by the Commission on Audit (COA).

He specifically belied insinuations involving his legal opinion allowing the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone (APECO) to grant permits outside its controlled areas even though only the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) is allowed to do so and his supposed approval of a 75-year permit to a casino operator. 

Jurado explained that APECO, a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), had requested an opinion if it is allowed under its amended charter to operate outside the Aurora Economic Zone and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA).

Citing the APECO charter (Republic Act 9490), as amended by RA 10083, Jurado said “it is clear that APECO is allowed to operate outside the Aurora Economic Zone as long as it is within a PEZA controlled area.”

He recounted that assistant government corporate counsel Ma. Dolores Rigonan made the draft opinion that cited this provision and this was forwarded to deputy government corporate counsel Elpidio Vega who reversed it.

Jurado upheld Rigonan’s position.

But in his two-page opinion dated Oct. 11, 2017, Jurado wrote against APECO: the state firm “can only do online gaming outside its territorial jurisdiction if within PEZA area; otherwise, it cannot.”

He also denied the allegation that he approved a 75-year casino permit.

“I really do not know what the Office of Government Corporate Counsel lawyers were referring to when they alleged supposed corruption in approving a 75-year casino permit, because the OGCC has no power to approve casino permits or grant gambling franchises. I hope that the OGCC lawyers could show this 75-year casino permit I supposedly issued,” he said.

Jurado believes his conflict with OGCC lawyers stemmed from actions he took following the COA report last March, which showed that OGCC lawyers have been receiving, among others, “secret allowances” directly from some GOCCs.

“They alleged that I am corrupt while simultaneously brushing aside the fact that they are the ones being investigated and audited by the COA,” he stressed.

‘Refund P.6M excess allowance’

Meanwhile, the COA has ordered five lawyers of OGCC to return P621,717.72 in allowances excessively paid to them by GOCCs last year.

State auditors, in a 2017 report released recently, said allowances received by the lawyers for legal services rendered exceeded the 50-percent limit based on their annual basic salary.

Such alleged overpayment, the audit team noted, is contrary to COA Circular No. 85-25-E, which states that “the total extra compensation shall, in no case, exceed 50 percent of his annual salary.”

State auditors said the OGCC, as the premier law office of GOCCs, is mandated to provide legal services, representation, reviews and advice to all GOCCs and exercise control and supervision over all legal departments or divisions of its client corporations. – With Michael Punongbayan