Osmeña, city treasurer: Ayuman’s complaint has no merit

CEBU, Philippines — Citing lack of merit, Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña and City Treasurer Tessie Camarillo are asking the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the criminal and administrative complaints filed against them for not accepting the proceeds of a South Road Properties lot sale.

In a September 28 joint counter-affidavit, Osmeña and Camarillo answered the allegations raised by Apas Barangay Captain Ramil Ayuman, who accused the two of grave misconduct for supposedly violating Section 3 of Republic Act 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials.

But Osmeña and Camarillo vehemently denied Ayuman’s claims.

“The respondents were simply ensuring that the properties of the City Government of Cebu would not fall into the wrong hands by virtue of the unauthorized contracts resulting from the whimsical and arbitrary actions by unscrupulous officials,” read part of the 18-page counter-affidavit of Osmeña and Camarillo.

Osmeña and Camarillo said the case was merely supported by “fabricated opinions, unfounded suppositions, and baseless conclusions.”

Last month, Osmeña ordered Camarillo to refrain from accepting payments from giant developers that bought 45.2 hectares of land at the SRP.

Ayuman’s complaint stemmed from the July 27 letter of Osmeña, who told Camarillo that any installment payment would be “devoid of any legal and/or contractual basis” in relation to the “irregularly executed contracts” entered into by the city.

During the previous administration, former mayor Michael Rama sold 45.2 hectares for a total of P16.7 billion. Some 26.3 hectares were bought by the consortium of Ayala Land, Cebu Holdings Inc., and SM Prime Holdings or ALI Consortium while 19.2 hectares were awarded to Filinvest Land Inc.

These buyers already paid P11 billion to the city and are expected to settle the remaining balance next year, as agreed under the deed of sale.

Osmeña, however, had ordered Camarillo not to use money paid by the buyers and has been vocal about his plan to rescind the contracts the city signed with the developers.

In their affidavit, Osmeña and Camarillo said the Committee on Awards had no authority to conduct the public bidding of the SRP lot sale since the City Council issued a resolution to hold in abeyance the bidding process of the lot sale.

“Former Mayor Rama had no prior authority from the Sanggunian to enter into and/or execute any of those contracts for the sale/disposal of SRP lands,” Osmeña and Camarillo said.

They cited “numerous irregularities” by the Committee on Awards such as: SM and Ayala allegedly purchased bidding documents separately but upon submission of bids, they formed the SM-Ayala consortium in order to bid as one entity; SM and Ayala do not have a consortium agreement as proof of the alleged consortium or they failed to submit the said agreement to the committee as part of the requirements to consider them as one entity.

Further, Osmeña and Camarillo alleged that the committee proceeded with the bidding even if there was only one bidder, the consortium of Ayala and SM, which allegedly violated Circular No. 89-296 of Commission on Audit.

They said SM also reportedly failed to submit a tax clearance from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, making the consortium “ineligible to bid.”

Osmeña and Camarillo said Rama flew to Metro Manila to secure and execute the deed of sale on installment; supplement agreement with Ayala Land, CHI, SM, and FLI, two days after the council passed a resolution to defer any action of the SRP lot sale.

Osmeña and Camarillo said Ayuman’s complaint is “baseless and unfounded” because there was no valid sale in the first place.

In his complaint, Ayuman asked the anti-graft body to immediately place Osmeña and Camarillo under preventive suspension pending investigation of the complaint to prevent them from using their positions to pressure and influence potential witnesses against them.

But Osmeña and Camarillo said they have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

“Due to the complainant’s failure to present clear and convincing evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties stands in favor of the respondents,” they said. —/JMD (FREEMAN)