Baguio execs accused of collecting ‘payoffs’: Senate probe pushed on Athletic Bowl ‘sell-out’

BAGUIO CITY -- Thousands of residents here called for an investigation of a memorandum of agreement between the city government and a Korean investor to develop the Athletic Bowl within Burnham Park and charge proponents in court for graft and corruption, ignorance of the law among other violations.

This, even if the council agreed on Monday to “cancel” the MOA.

Except for councilors Perlita-Chan-Rondez and Rocky Balisong, all councilors including Mayor Reinaldo Bautista Jr. and Vice Mayor Daniel Farinas approved the MOA amid allegations of payoffs amounting to millions of pesos.

During the council session on Monday, councilors Galo Weygan and Lourdes Tabanda denied taking money from Korean proponents in exchange for their approval of the project and making them a “milking cow.”

A move by Rondez during the session to have the controversy investigated by Malacanang and the Department of Interior and Local Government was disapproved by majority of the council.

In Facebook, thousands of city residents said all those involved in the “midnight deal” should be rejected as political aspirants should they run the coming May polls.

The Senate was also urged by the residents to investigate what they called the “sellout of the Athletic Bowl” to the group of Korean investors represented by a certain An Ho Yul who signed the MOA with Bautista on Dec. 10 which was later approved by the city council on Dec. 21 last year.

On Monday, Rondez delivered a privilege speech denouncing the MOA and those involved in its crafting saying it was “foul play” against the people of Baguio.

Aside from being illegal, Rondez said the MOA failed to comply with Republic Act 7713 which amended sections of Act. No. 6957 “authorizing the financing, construction, creation, operation and maintenance of infrastructure projects by the private sector.”

Rondez said under MOA, there was no definite period to start and end the project, a violation of the law. “There was also no publication of the project in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks as required by section 42 of RA 7713 It was done with undue haste in 19 days and thus, the city government failed to receive the most competitive and comparative proposal for the project in the absence of a public bidding as required by law.”

There was also a failure on the part of project proponents, Rondez said, to submit the project to the Regional Development Council or National Economic Development Authority for confirmation as section 4 of the same Act requires for projects P200,000,000 and above.

A direct or negotiated award of the contract was illegal, according to Rondez, because the project was not a new concept or technology and not part of priority projects. She added investors were “not bound jointly or severally to obligations contained in the MOA” and that Mr. An failed to present necessary documents that the group of investors is authorized to engage business in the Philippines.”

She said they didn’t present documents from the Securities Exchange Commission that they were a indeed a legal company or corporation.

Under the law, a company’s representation must have 60 percent Filipino membership and 40 percent foreign in cases of investments entering the country.

Bautista reportedly didn’t seek legal advice from the city legal officer and department heads before endorsing the MOA.

Farinas, during Monday’s hearing admitted he was the lawyer of Mr. An in other cases but not related to the MOA.

Rondez asked Farinas during Monday’s session why there was no proper notice at least 24 hours before the council session on Dec. 31, 2009 as required by the council’s internal rules and regulations.

Without her knowing it, she said the session on Dec. 21, 2009 pushed through despite the council’s agreement on Dec. 14, 2009 that it will recess on that day.

According to Rondez, despite her being a member of the committee on laws, she was not consulted and made a signatory to the committee report recommending confirmation of the MOA.

Farinas insisted during the session everything was done in order to which Rondez said the MOA was done without transparency thus city residents were outraged.

Under the MOA the Korean developers will construct a four storey hotel, a three storey sports center, function rooms and offices, and a driving range with golfing equipments and other facilities.

The agreement also provides investors shall refurbish and rehabilitate the entire Athletic Bowl facility by refitting the existing track and field oval to international standards and the rehabilitation of the bleachers into a twenty thousand capacity structure.

Also, the agreement stipulates that the athletic bowl will be leased to the Korean investors for a period of twenty five years at a rental cost of one hundred thousand pesos per month.

The planned development and rehabilitation of the athletic bowl by the Korean investors shall be undertaken at no cost to the city government, the MOA stated.

Bautista earlier denied there was graft and corruption as regards the MOA and that allegations of graft and corruption related to it were “chismis (gossip).” He said the MOA signed between him and An was merely to generate interest in the project among other willing investors.

Bautista said he talked to a Korean, a long time resident of the city, and the supposed middleman for the project, a move condemned by the religious, professional, business, and other civic groups.

The MOA was approved by the City Council in ‘flash resolution’ numbered 515-2009, Dec. 21, raising suspicion of graft and corruption posted in Facebook blogs.

Councilor Isabelo Cosalan, Jr., who is one of the signatories of resolution 515-2009, proposed a measure revoking council confirmation. “For a contract to be valid, the parties must be duly authorized by the entities they represent (which is absent in the present situation. Under Executive Order No. 695, ‘Devolving fully Burnham Park to the City Government of Baguio’, the (local government) ‘cannot encumber, mortgage, or alienate any portion of the park.”

“Approval of Resolution 515-2009 did not follow the rules or procedure of the City Council,” Cosalan said. -- AD