Beneco files graft cases vs NEA, DOE over gen manager appointments
>> Monday, October 4, 2021
NEA execs persona non grata in general assembly
BAGUIO CITY – Hundreds of member consumer owners and employees of the
Benguet Electric Cooperative declared officials of the National Electrification
Administration persona no grata and expressed their vehement objection to the
designation of a project supervisor from the NEA to manage Beneco.
“Project manager” lawyer Mayo was nowhere at the Beneco main office premises at press time even as MSOs and employees held prayer rallies at the Beneco main office premises along South Drive since last week.,
Lawyer Ana Marie Paz Rafael who was earlier appointed by the NEA as GM was also not present at the premises.
MSOs and employees said Rafael had no business being at Beneco since she was not even a member-consumer.
Reports had it that Rafael rented a space at the YMCA building along Upper Session Road as her office after the city government closed the Beneco building early last week to disinfect the area.
During the Beneco annual general membership assembly here yesterday, MSOs and employees declared Beneco is not an ailing cooperative, not in chaos or lawlessness to warrant intervention by the State, it is running operations smoothly, addressing concerns and is not in the brink of collapse or bankruptcy.
Declarants added: “We find the preventive suspension order issued (by NEA) against Board Directors Mike Maspil, Josephine Tuling, Jeffred Acop, Peter Busaing, Robert Valentin, Fr. Jonathan Obar, Atty. Esteban Somngi and General Manager Melchor Licoben, by virtue of NEA Board of Administrators Resolution No. 2021-87, as an arbitrary exercise of power, confiscatory in character, violates due process and destroys or infringes the autonomous character of the electric cooperative.”
Somngi told newsmen they questioned already the designation of a project supervisor by the NEA citing earlier said reasons as basis.
Somngi wrote Dept. of Energy USec. Emmanuel P. Juaneza saying the PSO against them, was “anticipated this due to our strong belief that the NEA has exhibited partiality towards Atty. Ana Maria Paz B. Rafael. We are convinced that the issuance of the PSO is just another series of acts which NEA-BOA has committed to favor Atty. Rafael.
“We stand firm by our position that the NEA has no authority to appoint Atty. Rafael. In the same view, we also question her legal personality to initiate an administrative case against us because she is not a member-consumer of Beneco. When she initiated the bogus administrative complaint against us, we filed our answer, confident that this time, the procedure will be followed by NEA-BOA. Based on procedures, the Ad-Com takes initial cognizance of the case and act on preliminary matters such as the issuance of a PSO, if justified. Once again, the NEA-BOA disregarded established procedures. The PSO was issued by the BOA and signed by USec. Juaneza. This is procedurally infirm. The BOA has no power to directly suspend us and USec. Juaneza has no authority to sign it.
“We are therefore imploring upon NEA BOA to observe circumspection and fairness in its treatment of this issue besetting Beneco. We appeal on NEA-BOA to recall the PSO and follow the legal procedure. We have to respect the case pending before the Court of Appeals filed by GM. Melchor Licoben questioning the process of the appointment of GM done by NEA-BOA. How about if the CA will uphold the legality of the appointment of GM Licoben as done by the Beneco Board? Meaning, this preventive suspension is still premature and one thing is that, there is no legal ground for such issuance. For clear illustration: A trial court convicted the accused and imposed the penalty of death by lethal injection, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Will the accused be executed without waiting for the result of the appeal? If it is eventually established by evidence that suspension is justified, we shall abide by it provided we are afforded due process of law. If the legal procedures are not followed, we will consider it illegal. As a logical consequence, we will not follow it. More so, that a negotiation with TEAM ENERGY purposely to stabilize power rate is on-going.
“Along with the issuance of the PSO is the appointment of a PS. Even this is not in accordance with established procedures. The appointment of a PS must be based on justifiable grounds. None of said grounds exist in Beneco. We are therefore opposing the appointment of a PS because it is not justified.
“Lastly, we affirm our respect for NEA-BOA in the exercise of its supervisory function over ECs. But we shall resist any act of overreach and violation of the rights of the MCO’s whom we represent. Thus, we oppose and shall resist the issuance of the PSO for being void ab initio including the appointment of a PS for having no basis in fact and in law.
This, as Beneco MCOs filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint with prayer for preventive suspension against Juaneza and NEA Board of Administrators (BOA) Alipio V. Badelles, Agustin L. Maddatu, and Rene M. Gonzales for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, violation of Secs. 4 and 5 of R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
MCOs Mila Salvador, Primo Viernes, Jun Delos Santos, Theodora Parungao and Josephine Calinao filed said cases at the Office of the Ombudsman last Sept. 9, 2021.
Another Supplemental Complaint for Preventive Suspension was filed Tuesday.
This case stemmed from the recommendation and appointment of Rafael to the position of Beneco general manager, even though she was not qualified from occupying such post.
The public officials complained of, allegedly extended to applicant Rafael’s unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Despite her failure to possess the minimum qualifications for a GM, she was allegedly given a free passage by the respondents.
She does not possess at least five years of experience of proven track record in the effective management of a successful electric utility-related business enterprise and failed to obtain a favorable recommendation from the University of the Philippines College of Psychology.
These were some of requirements of guidelines NEA had issued, ie., NEA Memorandum 2017-035 and NEA Memorandum No. 2018-004.
These are mandatory minimum qualifications that must be possessed by any GM applicant due to the uniquely technical nature of the functions of the EC as a utility-based power distributor.
Unduly accommodating Rafael is likewise tantamount to violating the norms of conduct of public officials pertaining to commitment to public interest, professionalism, and justness and sincerity.
For ignoring communications pertinent to the GM controversy, complainants said the NEA BOA was guilty of failing to act promptly on requests.
The flagrant disregard of the rules constitutes Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, the said in their complaint.
The Beneco Labor Union (BELU), the Beneco Supervisors Association (BSA) and all the department managers along with the five MCOs filed their complaint at the Office of the Ombudsman last Sept. 9 against the NEA-BOA.
“The filing of the complaint was a testament of the MCO’s and Beneco’s resolve to uphold laws and regulations and a manifestation that any encroachment constitutive of breach of such laws and regulations will be met with strong resistance,” the Belu said in a statement. “Under no circumstance will Beneco allow itself to be bullied by those in authority.”
“Project manager” lawyer Mayo was nowhere at the Beneco main office premises at press time even as MSOs and employees held prayer rallies at the Beneco main office premises along South Drive since last week.,
Lawyer Ana Marie Paz Rafael who was earlier appointed by the NEA as GM was also not present at the premises.
MSOs and employees said Rafael had no business being at Beneco since she was not even a member-consumer.
Reports had it that Rafael rented a space at the YMCA building along Upper Session Road as her office after the city government closed the Beneco building early last week to disinfect the area.
During the Beneco annual general membership assembly here yesterday, MSOs and employees declared Beneco is not an ailing cooperative, not in chaos or lawlessness to warrant intervention by the State, it is running operations smoothly, addressing concerns and is not in the brink of collapse or bankruptcy.
Declarants added: “We find the preventive suspension order issued (by NEA) against Board Directors Mike Maspil, Josephine Tuling, Jeffred Acop, Peter Busaing, Robert Valentin, Fr. Jonathan Obar, Atty. Esteban Somngi and General Manager Melchor Licoben, by virtue of NEA Board of Administrators Resolution No. 2021-87, as an arbitrary exercise of power, confiscatory in character, violates due process and destroys or infringes the autonomous character of the electric cooperative.”
Somngi told newsmen they questioned already the designation of a project supervisor by the NEA citing earlier said reasons as basis.
Somngi wrote Dept. of Energy USec. Emmanuel P. Juaneza saying the PSO against them, was “anticipated this due to our strong belief that the NEA has exhibited partiality towards Atty. Ana Maria Paz B. Rafael. We are convinced that the issuance of the PSO is just another series of acts which NEA-BOA has committed to favor Atty. Rafael.
“We stand firm by our position that the NEA has no authority to appoint Atty. Rafael. In the same view, we also question her legal personality to initiate an administrative case against us because she is not a member-consumer of Beneco. When she initiated the bogus administrative complaint against us, we filed our answer, confident that this time, the procedure will be followed by NEA-BOA. Based on procedures, the Ad-Com takes initial cognizance of the case and act on preliminary matters such as the issuance of a PSO, if justified. Once again, the NEA-BOA disregarded established procedures. The PSO was issued by the BOA and signed by USec. Juaneza. This is procedurally infirm. The BOA has no power to directly suspend us and USec. Juaneza has no authority to sign it.
“We are therefore imploring upon NEA BOA to observe circumspection and fairness in its treatment of this issue besetting Beneco. We appeal on NEA-BOA to recall the PSO and follow the legal procedure. We have to respect the case pending before the Court of Appeals filed by GM. Melchor Licoben questioning the process of the appointment of GM done by NEA-BOA. How about if the CA will uphold the legality of the appointment of GM Licoben as done by the Beneco Board? Meaning, this preventive suspension is still premature and one thing is that, there is no legal ground for such issuance. For clear illustration: A trial court convicted the accused and imposed the penalty of death by lethal injection, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Will the accused be executed without waiting for the result of the appeal? If it is eventually established by evidence that suspension is justified, we shall abide by it provided we are afforded due process of law. If the legal procedures are not followed, we will consider it illegal. As a logical consequence, we will not follow it. More so, that a negotiation with TEAM ENERGY purposely to stabilize power rate is on-going.
“Along with the issuance of the PSO is the appointment of a PS. Even this is not in accordance with established procedures. The appointment of a PS must be based on justifiable grounds. None of said grounds exist in Beneco. We are therefore opposing the appointment of a PS because it is not justified.
“Lastly, we affirm our respect for NEA-BOA in the exercise of its supervisory function over ECs. But we shall resist any act of overreach and violation of the rights of the MCO’s whom we represent. Thus, we oppose and shall resist the issuance of the PSO for being void ab initio including the appointment of a PS for having no basis in fact and in law.
This, as Beneco MCOs filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint with prayer for preventive suspension against Juaneza and NEA Board of Administrators (BOA) Alipio V. Badelles, Agustin L. Maddatu, and Rene M. Gonzales for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, violation of Secs. 4 and 5 of R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
MCOs Mila Salvador, Primo Viernes, Jun Delos Santos, Theodora Parungao and Josephine Calinao filed said cases at the Office of the Ombudsman last Sept. 9, 2021.
Another Supplemental Complaint for Preventive Suspension was filed Tuesday.
This case stemmed from the recommendation and appointment of Rafael to the position of Beneco general manager, even though she was not qualified from occupying such post.
The public officials complained of, allegedly extended to applicant Rafael’s unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
Despite her failure to possess the minimum qualifications for a GM, she was allegedly given a free passage by the respondents.
She does not possess at least five years of experience of proven track record in the effective management of a successful electric utility-related business enterprise and failed to obtain a favorable recommendation from the University of the Philippines College of Psychology.
These were some of requirements of guidelines NEA had issued, ie., NEA Memorandum 2017-035 and NEA Memorandum No. 2018-004.
These are mandatory minimum qualifications that must be possessed by any GM applicant due to the uniquely technical nature of the functions of the EC as a utility-based power distributor.
Unduly accommodating Rafael is likewise tantamount to violating the norms of conduct of public officials pertaining to commitment to public interest, professionalism, and justness and sincerity.
For ignoring communications pertinent to the GM controversy, complainants said the NEA BOA was guilty of failing to act promptly on requests.
The flagrant disregard of the rules constitutes Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, the said in their complaint.
The Beneco Labor Union (BELU), the Beneco Supervisors Association (BSA) and all the department managers along with the five MCOs filed their complaint at the Office of the Ombudsman last Sept. 9 against the NEA-BOA.
“The filing of the complaint was a testament of the MCO’s and Beneco’s resolve to uphold laws and regulations and a manifestation that any encroachment constitutive of breach of such laws and regulations will be met with strong resistance,” the Belu said in a statement. “Under no circumstance will Beneco allow itself to be bullied by those in authority.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment