The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has upheld its indictment of former Department of Agriculture (DA) undersecretary for fisheries Eduardo B. Gongona over the alleged anomalous 2018 contract for the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources' (BFAR) Integrated Marine Environment Monitoring System Project Phase II (PHILO Project).
In a 13-page order, the OMB denied the motions for partial reconsideration filed by Gongona who appealed the OMB's resolution that indicted him for two counts of violating Section 3(e), one count of Section 3(g) and one count of Section 3(j) of Republic Act (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
“Succinctly, respondent-movant (Gongona) did not introduce any newly discovered evidence that would materially affect the assailed findings of this office; neither was he able to show any errors of law or irregularities committed therein...," the OMB said.
“The arguments he has put forth have either been already considered or passed upon in the assailed Resolution, or better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level,” it added.
Under the BFAR’s PHILO Project that was supposed to be funded by the French government through a loan grant, vessel monitoring system (VMS) satellite transmitters and transceivers were sought to be purchased and used to monitor fishing vessels operating within and beyond the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
One of the requirements set by the French government in the loan agreement was that participants in the bidding process must be companies based in France.
After the first bidding process did not push through due to “an issue concerning the mode of procurement to be used for the Project”, BFAR held a second round of bidding on Dec. 20, 2017 and awarded the contract to SRT-France which was later declared by the French Embassy as unqualified since it was incorporated in France only on Nov. 15, 2017 without manufacturing and engineering facilities as well as having no recorded activities in the European country.
“The records bear evidence belying respondent-movant’s claim that he had no knowledge of the ineligibility of SRT-France and that he merely relied on the evaluation and resolution of the BAC (Bids and Awards Committee) and the TWG (Technical Working Group) endorsing the competence of SRT-France as a qualified bidder,” the OMB said.
“In the narrations contained in his Counter-Affidavit, it appears that as early as the time of bidding, he was already aware of the possible defects in the eligibility of SRT-France,” it added.
The OMB pointed out: "It was respondent-movant who moved for the cancellation of the French Loan for some unknown reason, and in the absence of any intimation from the French Government of its intention to revoke the financial aid.”
It also indicated that “he was the one who signed the Notices of Award to SRT-France and SRT-UK.”
“His signature in the contract completes the questionable award of the contract to SRT-UK,” it added.