Nava to challenge Ombudsman reso

[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]

[av_heading heading=’ Nava to challenge Ombudsman reso ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY GLENDA SOLOGASTOA
[/av_heading]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Wednesday. September 20, 2017
[/av_textblock]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
ILOILO City – Councilor Plaridel Nava is challenging the Office of the Ombudsman resolution finding probable cause to charge him and Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog of one count of violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) over a city government deal with 3L Towing Services.

“We will file a pleading with the Ombudsman simply to seek clarification kon ngaa na-include ako. Sin-o nag akusar sa akon? Diin ako nga criminal case natupa? Sa case nga gin-file ni (former Iloilo provincial administrator Manuel) Mejorada which I’m not a party defendant or party respondent or party to the case? Sa criminal case ni Mayor Mabilog? O sa akon case nga gin-file kay Mayor?” Nava asked.

It was unclear if the Ombudsman consolidated the cases, he said.

According to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, Mabilog and Nava should be held liable for violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act that prohibits public officials “from directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.”

Her office announced the findings in the Ombudsman website on Sept. 18 but the city councilor said he has yet to receive a copy of the resolution.

Nava found the timing of the Ombudsman’s resolution uncanny. It was released a week after he delivered a privilege speech tending to defend Mabilog whom President Rodrigro Duterte accused of being an illegal drug protector, said the councilor.

“Is this merely a coincidence? I don’t know. If the Ombudsman has good faith, it should have made sure we have received its resolution before publishing it,” said Nava.

“Ang gwa subong una ang publicity antis kami ginpadal-an kopya, kundi unfair para sa amon,” he said. “Makita mo nga ang intention is not to give us due process but to destroy us before the bar of public opinion.”

Nava said he never thought he would be dragged in the 3L Towing Services case.

Carpio-Morales stated that while Mabilog and Nava pointed to each other as the true owner of 3L and thus have financial or pecuniary interest in the memorandum of agreement (MOA) of  the Iloilo City government for towing and clamping, “one thing is clear from their accusations and counter-accusations — both colluded to create 3L, to get (Leny) Garcia to act as its dummy owner, to have the business registered with the Department of Trade and Industry and Bureau of Internal Revenue, to secure its business and mayor’s permits, and to have it awarded the MOA with the city government without going through a competitive process.”

On the part of Nava as revealed by Mabilog, according to the Ombudsman, the former’s intervention was made manifest when he sponsored the wheel clamping ordinance as a supplement to the towing ordinance.

“Sponsoring an ordinance is not a criminal offense, it doesn’t carry criminal intent so paano ako madalasa,” said Nava.

According to Carpio-Morales, “there was a meeting of the minds” between Mabilog and Nava “to do an illegal act and thus they must both suffer its consequences.”

“Butang ta ‘bi may ara kami intention mag negosyo, is it a criminal offense to have an intention? No. Unless otherwise that intention is consummated by action,” said Nava.

According to the councilor, the contract with 3L Towing Services was not consummated at all because nobody was towed.

“Not even a single centavo was spent by the government,” he added.

In April 2015 Mejorada hauled Mabilog to the Ombudsman over the 3L contract. He claimed the contract was awarded without public bidding.

September last year, Nava – who was at loggerheads with Mabilog – submitted a supplemental affidavit boosting Mejorada’s case. He accused Mabilog of actually owning 3L and claimed the mayor instructed him to look for someone they could trust to stand as dummy owner.

Nava also claimed to be regularly reporting to Mabilog about the status of the business venture and that on June 16, 2014, the mayor handed him P500,000 in cash as part of his capital contribution to the business.

Mabilog got back at Nava by himself filing a complaint against the city councilor. He claimed Nava was the real owner of 3L./PN
[/av_textblock]

[/av_one_full]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here