Criminal and administrative complaints have filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against former and incumbent officials of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) for the alleged irregular contract for the maintenance of the Light Rail Transit Line 2 (LRT2) system. Named respondents in the complaints were former LRTA head executive assistant Jeremy S. Regino, now the incumbent Philippine National Raiways (PNR) general manager; LRTA Administrator Hernando T. Cabrera; LRTA Engineering and Maintenance Department head Santos G. Abrazado; LRTA Deputy Administrator for Operations and Engineering Paul Y. Chua; former head of the LRTA Engineering and Maintenance Department Federico J. Canar Jr., now the incumbent Department of Transportation-Metro Rail Transit 3 general manager; former head of the LRTA Legal Department Jose Jobel V. Belarmino;  LRTA principal engineer Cesar J. Legaspi; LRTA principal engineer Hilfred Q. Tusing; and head of the LRTA Procurement Division Aylwinston C. Pillos. The private individuals who were named co-respondents were Yolanda Ong-Ramos and Joseph O. Ramos, shareholders and officers of Multiscan Corporation and Brownsteel Corporation; John Doe and Richard Doe of Woojin Industrial Machinery Co. Ltd. of Korea; and Ma. Grazia G. Lee, shareholder and representative of Worldleaders Transport Corp. The complainant, lawyer Gerry A. Francisco, asked the OMB to indict the respondents criminally for violations of Section 3(a), (e), and (g) and Section 4(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in relation to the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act. As for the administrative charges, Francisco pleaded the OMB to hold them liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Incompetence, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Serious Dishonesty under Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in relation to RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Francisco’s complaint-affidavit was received by the OMB on May 25, 2023. None of the respondents could be contacted for comment as of posting.  Manila Bulletin will publish their answers to the complaints once the OMB requires them to do so and once their pleadings are officially filed. Francisco alleged that in May 2018, the respondents executed a five-year contract for LRT2 with the Joint Venture of APT Lobal, Inc. composed of Multiscan Corporation and Opus Land Inc. He said that Multiscan, in its Joint Venture Agreement with its partners, was obligated to supply and deliver majority of the trainsets' capital spares with the brand name classified as Phil Tech Engineering. However, Francisco said that  on Sept. 11, 2019, Ong-Ramos cited "obsolescence" of the Toshiba brand for the train monitoring and propulsion systems of LRT2 trainsets and proposed to the LRTA the "upgrade" of the equivalent brand of Woojin Korea. He pointed out in his complaint that "obsolescence" cannot be used as a justification for the upgrade.  He alleged that the respondents conspired with one another and used "imaginary scenarios and unlawful grounds" to favor the Ramoses and other private individuals to defraud the government. By using Woojin Korea equipment for the propulsion and train monitoring systems of the LRT2 trainsets, Francisco alleged it will cost the LRTA close to P1 billion worth of public funds. On the other hand, Francisco alleged that Worldleaders already had a bad record with LRTA since it reportedly reneged its contractual obligations several times in the past. By entering into another contract with such a supplier, he also alleged that the respondents made a deal that was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. "There is no reason not to say that the Worldleaders' default had consequences that are unfavorable to the LRTA, which must be classified as justifiable ground," the complaint said. "To say otherwise is unwise," he stressed. Francisco also asked the OMB to order the preventive suspension for six months of the respondents who are in government service since “their continued stay in their respective positions will surely affect the outcome and disposition of the cases filed against them, especially that the records, information and documents pertaining to this Complaint are all in their safekeeping and possession, or in the possession or safekeeping of employees over whom they have influence or they exercise supervision by reason of their respective position….”