[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=’ Sandigan finds cause to try Binay over Makati bldg ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY ADRIAN STEWART CO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
MANILA – The Sandiganbayan found probable cause to put former vice president Jejomar Binay and son Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay on trial over the allegedly overpriced construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building II.
The Binays have been charged with malversation, graft and falsification of public documents.
“This Court finds the existence of probable cause in each of the cases for the issuance of warrant of arrest against all the accused and to hold them for trial,” read part of the Sandiganbayan resolution released on Tuesday.
“The alleged simulated public bidding involving the design and construction of the parking building could not have been made without the participation of the accused,” the resolution further read.
But the Sandiganbayan also noted that there was no need to issue arrest warrants against the Binays since they already posted a bail bond of P376,000 and P100,000, respectively.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas Enciso VI, who were accusing Binay and several others of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to the Anti-Plunder Law.
Bondal and Enciso questioned the contract for the parking building, which they said was supposed to cost only P245.56 million but overpriced by more than P1.314 billion.
The final contract price was pegged at P1.56 billion.
The complaint said the respondents awarded the P11.9-million contract for the design and architectural services to MANA Architecture and Interior Design Company without public bidding.
Payment was released to MANA even without the deliverables, while the first two phases of the construction proceeded without a detailed engineering plan, contrary to procurement rules, the complaint stated.
Moreover, building contractor Hilmarc’s Construction was awarded the contract despite irregularities and the use of falsified documents, the complainants claimed.
Two losing bidders were listed in the contract but one of such “bidders” denied participation while the other was nonexistent, said the complaint./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
