• GILBERT P. BAYORAN
The Office of the Ombudsman has affirmed its earlier decision finding basis to charge former Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) chief Hermenegildo Serafica over the delay in the procurement of farming tools worth P5.7 million.
In a 21-page joint resolution dated Sept. 26, 2023, the Ombudsman said Serafica violated Section 65 (a) (2) of Republic Act 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, which penalizes any public official who delays without justifiable cause the awarding of contracts beyond the prescribed periods of bids or other documents.
According to the Ombudsman, the invitation to bid for the procurement of harrowers was opened from Aug. 23 to Sept. 13, 2017, but the notice to proceed was only issued on Sept. 3, 2020.
In his partial motion for reconsideration, Serafica said that while there was a delay in the award of contract, it was caused by circumstances beyond his control and it should be met with consideration.
He said that there was depletion of SRA personnel, a marching order from then President Rodrigo Duterte to clean up the office of scalawag officers, because of corruption, and also blamed red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy in the SRA as early as 2017.
Due to alleged change in the management that contributed to the delay, Serafica claimed that he could not micro manage and supervise all processes of the SRA.
He further attributed the delay to the series of changes in the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) composition, which affected the endorsement of pending accountabilities.
Serafica added that the pandemic also contributed to the difficulties in carrying out SRA operations as he further stressed that he cannot act without the authorization of the Board.
He added that it was only on Aug. 24, 2020 that the BAC recommended to the head of the Procuring Entity for the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Regrettably, the Ombudsman said it finds no sufficient grounds to reconsider its previous position.
“Even assuming, but only for the sake of theoretical argument, that the Board’s deferments had been material, Serafica’s claims of such deferments and suspensions is not supported by any evidence on record,” it said.
“His claims rests solely on alleged status reports and excerpts and timelines on SIDA (Sugarcane Industry Development Act) procurement, including Board discussions which are unsigned, uncertified, unverified, and undated,” the Ombudsman resolution dated Oct. 26 last year, and signed by Ombudsman Samuel Martires, said.
“They are merely spreadsheet printouts the origins and custodians of which cannot be determined by this Office. They are nothing more than mere allegations, at best, which, if unsupported by evidence, cannot be made a basis or ground for reconsideration,” the resolution further said. | GB
