Ombudsman asked to probe ₱9.97-M Albay flood project

The Office of the Ombudsman has been asked to investigate a ₱9.97-million flood control project in Ligao City, Albay, after state auditors flagged the use of funds intended to rebuild a consolidation dam for a different structure.

The Commission on Audit (COA) made the request after upholding the disallowance of a ₱5.77-million payment made by the regional Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to BDL Construction and Supply.

In a 15-page decision dated July 28, COA upheld a 2022 ruling by its Region V office involving the payment for the project.

The notice of disallowance held BDL Construction and Supply, then-DPWH regional director Danilo Dequito and chief engineer Efren Manalo liable for the questioned amount.

The DPWH regional office awarded the ₱9.97-million contract in 2012 for the repair and reconstruction of a consolidation dam and a scoured riverbank at Pinit Foot Bridge in Ligao City.

The structures had been damaged by Typhoon Bebeng, internationally known as Aere, the previous year.

During a site inspection in 2013, the COA Regional Technical Services Office found that the consolidation dam had not been rebuilt even though the contractor had reported completion of the project.

The finding led auditors to disallow the ₱5.49 million allocated for the consolidation dam, along with miscellaneous expenses that brought the total disallowed payment to ₱5.77 million.

Manalo appealed the disallowance, arguing that a concrete revetment had been constructed near the location where the original consolidation dam was supposed to be repaired and reconstructed.

The DPWH also argued that withholding payment for the replacement structure would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the government.

COA, however, ruled that using funds intended for the consolidation dam to construct a concrete revetment violated Republic Act No. 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

The commission also said the project’s funding source, the 2010 General Appropriations Act, did not authorize the expenditure for the different structure, making the disbursement “tantamount to disbursing government funds without a valid appropriation.”

COA further noted that the circumstances could constitute a violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code and said there could be basis for an investigation into possible technical malversation.

The case now moves to the Ombudsman following COA’s request for an investigation into the questioned project and the circumstances surrounding the disallowed payment. TRACY CABRERA