Ombudsman should probe Valencia

The Chronicle has run an un-intended series of articles about what is going on in the town of Valencia.
Were it not for Mayor Rodolfo V. Gonzalez Jr.’s bizarre press conference weeks ago (I learned the Chronicle was not invited), the interesting things going on in Valencia would not have seen print.
Everybody knows a Commission on Audit (COA) report is routine.
But it moved the newspaper to scrutinize it instead, purely and solely because of Mayor Gonzalez’ previous actions.
I myself was surprised at the mayor’s dis-proportionate reaction to a routine, surface COA publication, that I was prompted to ask: What is in this COA report anyway, that drove the mayor to evoke a moment of madness?
So I asked the news-desk for a full copy of the COA report.
The significant matter I read in the COA report is the inter-twining, interlocking, of personalities, which to my mind, would place its officials in a conflict of interest.
I think Mayor Rodolfo V. Gonzalez Jr., owes it to the public to explain this conflict of interest that has besieged himself and his administration.
This is something a little serious because it has criminal implications.
First, it is the mayor’s own brother, also a public official who is entangled in a conflict of interest position.
His brother is a municipal councilor, and at the same time an officer of a cooperative that has received millions of pesos of loans from the municipal government (peoples’ money).
I think there is an inherent conflict.
Its like playing for the Boston Celtics in the morning, and then playing for the LA Lakers in the evening.
It just isn’t right.
It creates a dizzying dis-comfort like a rumbling stomach.
Immediately, Mayor Gonzalez also gets entangled with the anti-graft law, Republic Act No. 3019, particular Section 3(d):
“Having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him” during its pendency
What needs to be clarified is: Why did Mayor Gonzalez allow his own brother-councilor to be a treasurer of a cooperative (Valencia Integrated Growers Multi-purpose Cooperative) that has pending official business with the municipality, and that is procuring millions of pesos of loans?
Second, Mayor Gonzalez may get entangled with Section 3 (j) of the anti-graft law which penalizes a public official who:
Knowingly approves or grants…privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such…. privilege or advantage…”
Mayor Gonzalez needs to explain why he allowed the release of millions of pesos of loans to this cooperative when the cooperative is “automatically disqualified” (per COA circular) by virtue of his own brother being an officer of such recipient-cooperative.
Besides, the cooperative according to COA, has deficiencies, which do not even entitle or qualify it to be a recipient.
For one, according to COA, the cooperative is financially unstable. The coop’s assets are insufficient to pay off its loans. The coop has no cash backing to pay annual amortizations and interest.
This brings Mayor Gonzalez to face-to-face with Section 3(e) of the anti-graft law which penalizes any public official who:
“Causes any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gives any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence”
The finding by the COA of a cooperative that is financially malnourished, and yet being the beneficiary of millions of pesos of loans, leads to a conclusion that the cooperative has received “unwarranted benefits” (undeserved) from the municipality.
I learned that the cooperative enjoys a four-year grace period, meaning, the cooperative is given a vacation from loan payments for four years.
I have also noticed that of the four cooperatives listed as recipients of financial assistance from the municipality in the COA report, it is the Valencia Integrated Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative that has suspiciously received a gargantuan loan of P3-million.
The other cooperatives only received P500,000 maximum.
So, in terms of distribution of financial assistance, the Valencia Integrated Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative enjoyed far financial advantage, despite its being disqualified and financially unstable.
“Co-incidentally”, this is the same cooperative where the mayor’s brother occupied the position of treasurer.
Can the mayor explain this?
There is, we think, sufficient basis to refer this matter to the office of the ombudsman for administrative and criminal investigation.
In this way, there is a proper venue where the good mayor can explain these matters that are raising more questions than answers.
The ombudsman is the right venue because this is the mechanism adopted by our Constitution to promote, maintain and ensure public accountability
At the same time, Mayor Gonzalez can vindicate himself once he has sufficiently explained to the people why there is, or isn’t any conflict of interest in running the affairs of government.

Mayor's bro not denying documents

I was able to invterview the brother of Valencia mayor Rodolfo V. Gonzalez Jr., municipal councilor Wilfredo V. Gonzalez, to get his side on his involvement as an officer of a cooperative that received a P3-million loan from the municipal government.
This is a conflict-of-interest issue because Wilfredo V. Gonzalez is a member of the municipal council that appropriates money to assist non-government oganizations, and one of the recipients is a cooperative which he, until recently, was an officer (treasurer).
Here is the story out of my interview:
Valencia municipal Councilor Wilfredo V. Gonzalez is not denying a document that listed him as an officer of a cooperative that has been a recipient of the P3-million loan from the municipal government.
This was learned from Gonzalez during an exclusive interview with the Chronicle when asked about a document, the general information sheet for the year 2006 where he was listed as “treasurer” of the Valencia Integrated Growers Multipurpose Cooperative.
Gonzalez was first elected councilor in 2004.
He is on his second consecutive term.
A report of the Commission on Audit disclosed additional loan releases amounting to P2,000,000.00 were released in 2006 and 2007.
When asked about the document, councilor Gonzalez said:
“Kay na a man kay documents diha, unsa-on nako pag-deny?” (Since you have documents with you, how can I deny?)
Also the Chronicle asked councilor Gonzales whether or not he is a member of any cooperative other than the Valencia Integrated Growers Multipurpose Cooperative, his response was: “Wala”(None).
Gonzalez also confirmed that there was en elective official who was an officer of the cooperative, but resigned after the release of the finding of the COA.
Gonzalez did not identify who this person was saying this was not “necessary”.
Gonzalez emphasized that the recommendations of the COA were followed.
He explained the set-up of the cooperative saying there is a credit committee of which he is not a member.
He said he is also not a member of the board.
Gonzalez also said he signed documents of the cooperative before when he was still a private person.
Gonzalez also confirmed “the COA report is true”.
He explained that after the audit findings, there is a dialogue with COA and the local government where the COA recommends matters that need to be changed.
He said with respect to Valencia growers, the set-up has been changed because we need to follow the COA recommendations, Gonzalez said.

Mayor's brod linked to P3M loan anomaly

The brother of Valencia Mayor Rodolfo V. Gonzalez Jr., who is an incumbent municipal councilor, has been linked to the anomalous P3-million “financial assistance” to a disqualified non-government organization.
Documents obtained by the Negros Chronicle show municipal councilor Wilfredo V. Gonzalez, the mayor’s older brother, who chairs the powerful appropriations committee of the sangguniang bayan of Valencia, also occupied the position of “treasurer” of the Valencia Integrated Growers Multi-purpose Cooperative (VIGMPCI), a disqualified non-government organization that has been a recipient of a P3-million assistance from the municipal government.
This conflict of interest was among the findings of the latest report of the Commission on Audit.
The Commission on Audit has cited the cooperative code (R.A. No. 6938) which bars elective government officials from becoming officers of cooperatives.
A ranking official of the Valencia government interviewed by the Chronicle has described councilor Wilfredo V. Gonzalez as one suffering from a serious conflict of interest.
“The role of the municipal council is to appropriate funds for livelihood assistance to non government organizations,” the official said.
Another Valencia official also explained that the sanggunian grants authority to the mayor to enter into a contract with non government organizations.
“Councilor Gonzalez heads the appropriations committee of the sangguniang bayan” the official added.

“After the appropriation by the sanggunian, it goes to Mayor Roldolo Gonzalez Jr, who identifies the NGO loan beneficiaries,” the official explained.
“One of the loan recipients is an NGO-cooperative where councilor Wilfredo V. Gonzalez was a ranking officer---a treasurer at that,” the official noted.
That is plain and simple conflict of interest prohibited by the local government code, the official said.
Another Valencia official also questioned why councilor Wilfredo Gonzales is signing documents of the cooperative pertaining to the release of funds.
"Before the loaned coop funds are released to loan beneficiaries, documents have to pass through and be signed by councilor Gonzalez," the offiical said.
"Why is councilor Gonzalez signing coop documents when he is a municipal councilor?" the official asked.
The local government code (Section 51) clearly describes a conflict of interest relationship:
"Conflict of interest" refers in general to one where…a member of a sanggunian may not act in the public interest due to some private, pecuniary, or other personal considerations that may tend to affect his judgment to the prejudice of the service or the public

Section 89 of the local government code prohibits local government officials from having pecuniary interest in government transactions.
The law states: “It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee, directly or indirectly, to: (1) Engage in any business transaction with the local government unit in which he is an official or employee or over which he has the power of supervision, or with any of its authorized boards, officials, agents, or attorneys, whereby money is to be paid, or property or any other thing of value is to be transferred, directly or indirectly, out of the resources of the local government unit to such person or firm”
A check by the Chronicle also revealed that the anti-graft and corrupt practices act (R.A. 3019) holds liable officials in a position of conflict of interest.
The general information sheet of the VIGMPCI for the year 2006 listed councilor Wilfredo V. Gonzalez as treasurer of the cooperative.
At the same time, a finding by the Commission on Audit bared “additional loan releases amounting to P2,000,000.00 in the year 2006 and 2007 were made to VIGMPCI.”
Thus loan releases were made while Wilfredo V. Gonzalez was both a municipal councilor and officer of the recipient cooperative.
The Commission on Audit in its latest report, considers the loans granted to the Valencia Integrated Growers Multipurpose Cooperative (VIGMPCI) as VOID.
The COA also said that VIGMPCI is disqualified from receiving the financial assistance.
The COA has directed that the VIGMPCI “will have to immediately settle the amount released to them.”
The COA has also questioned or doubted the “real intention and use of the fund released” to VIGMPCI and other questionable NGO’s.
The COA specifically noted the “failure on the part of the municipality to properly accredit the NGOs” as evidenced by their deficiencies.

Valencia's P1.5M "banyo" anomaly exposed

The Commission on Audit has sniffed a stinking anomaly involving the questionable construction of what is touted to be one of the most expensive public comfort rooms ever built in the province costing no less than P1,500,000.00.
After more than two years since its start of construction these highly expensive “banyos” remain unfinished to date.
The delay is causing damage to the government and the people of Valencia town.
“In January 2006, the municipality of Valencia started the construction of public comfort rooms (CR) near the plaza with an appropriation of P1.5-million sourced out from the loan granted by the Development Bank of the Philippines,” the COA reported.
“It has been more than two years from the start of construction but the C.R. has not been completed up to the present,” the COA lamented.
The COA discovered that the one of the main causes of delay was because the construction plans were not followed.
“The delay in the completion of the project could have been avoided had the construction plan been followed strictly,” the COA reported.
The COA found that the program of work had been revised three times, thus causing the delay.
The undue delay is detrimental to public interest.
“Cost savings would have been possible and income could have been generated more than a year ago had this C.R. been completed and utilized,” the COA said.
Apparently, the kind of materials to be used in this public comfort room is so scarce and hard-to-find.
The municipal engineer has explained that the suppliers who quoted some of the tourism standard items could not deliver because those items were “not available locally nor in Manila.”
As a curious citizen I am prompted to ask these simple questions:
What kind of comfort room is this town trying to build that its materials are hard-to-find?”
If the materials cannot be found locally nor in Manila, where will they plan to procure the materials? In Hongkong?
According to the COA report the mayor of Valencia Mayor Rodolfo Gonzalez Jr., has realized that it would have been better if this CR has been constructed by a “qualified licensed contractor.”
Is the mayor saying that an unqualified, unlicensed contractor was hired to do this job?
If so, why was an unqualified unlicensed contractor tasked to do this job in the first place?
It was learned that there were also suppliers whose deliveries were not in accordance with specifications.
A number of re-biddings for construction materials had to be made due to “bidding deficiencies.”
There were also changes in the program of work due to changes in prices and changes in design, the COA report bared.
Since apparently this delayed project is derived from a bank loan, and it is still not generating income until now, who is shouldering the loan obligations, interest and principal?

The "missing" Valencia properties

The actual existence of more than P20-million worth of movable property in Valencia is in question, a report by the Commission on Audit disclosed.
The reasons are: First, the municipality of Valencia under Mayor Rodolfo Gonzales, Jr., failed to submit an inventory report of its movable property; second, the municipality of Valencia did not complete the physical count of its movable property.
Worse, the COA has been told that one of reasons why these properties could not be inventoried is because some of them “have been assigned to other duties and functions.”
It is not certain what "them" the COA is referring to.
As a result, the COA said there is no basis to say that these P20-million worth of movable properties actually exist.
This has also elicited reactions from legal observers. If the COA is referring to the properties as having been asisgned to other duties and functions then it can be the subject of a criminal case.
This is because the assigning public property to other public use could constitute technical malversation.
Under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, a public official can be liable for technical malversation if he is found to have applied public property under his administration to any public use other than that for which the properties were appropriated by law.
Because the municipality of Valencia did not submit an inventory report, nor did it complete its inventory, the validity of the town’s account balances is also under question.
The non-submission of an inventory report, and the non-completion of the physical count of movable properties runs counter to a COA circular that mandates the regular conduct of inventory.
Section 156 of COA Circular No. 92-386, which contains the rules and regulations on supply and property management, requires an annual physical inventory of all supplies and property of every local government unit as of December 31 of each year.
Valencia’s financial statements reflect P20,743,262.70 listed as office equipment, furniture, fixtures, machineries, transportation, and other property and plant equipment.
But while listed in the financial statements, this amount cannot be validated, the COA said.
Because the municipality of Valencia failed to complete the physical count, nor submit an inventory report of its properties, plus the lack of documents, the existence of these assets and the validity of the account balance could not be ascertained, the COA said.
Concerned Valencia residents are pushing for a full blown investigation to find out: where are these questioned properties? Why can’t these properties be inventoried? To what “other duties and functions” have these properties been assigned? Who are the public officials responsible?
Again, Valencia Mayor Rodolfo Gonzales, Jr. has been asked to explain this anomaly in his town, since public office is supposed to be a public trust.

A multi million columbarium in NegOr

A multi-million peso privately-run columbarium is quietly being constructed right in the church grounds of Our Lady of the Abandoned Parish in the town of Valencia, Negros Oriental.
From the reports that we received, the construction of this spanking columbarium resulted from a memorandum of agreement between the Diocese of Dumaguete and a private group headed by Constancio Sia.
The Diocese of Dumaguete is involved because it owns the land where the columbarium is to be constructed, which is located within the premises of the Valencia parish church.
I have to admit, I was ignorant about what a columbarium is until I stumbled into this in Valencia.
A columbarium has been defined a place for the respectful and usually public storage of cinerary urns (i.e. urns holding a deceased’s cremated remains).
So after the remains of a dead person is cremated, it is reduced into ashes, and has to be stored in some placed where the living would pay respects.
The ashes are placed in what is called a columbarium.
In Valencia, aside from the columbarium, what are to be contructed are usuary park, plus adoration chapel.
The idea is to offer these mini "memorial plots" commercially to private persons who may be interested.
Apparently, it is on "pre-selling" mode because the columbarium has not yet been completed.
As of this writing what has been done on the land area is levelling of the ground, and the construction of the cemented fence.
There is only one columbarium that I know that exists in Negros Oriental, and that is the one inside the Dumaguete Cathderal, and is being run by the diocese.
The one in Valencia is in partnership with a private entity.
When I was in Valencia during the holidays, the residents have no idea what is being done on the parish premises, although there is a big board showing the proposed construction of the columbarium, usuarry park and adoration chapel.
Obviously, the columbarium caters to the well-to-do families, and those who have relatives working abroad because each plot costs thousands of pesos.
What I noticed about this columbarium in Valencia is that it will take up much physical space out of the parish.
The land lays idle, and being church property, is exempt from tax.
But when it becomes income generating, someone has to pay the government its due.