It’s final: 6 NPO execs dismissed

MANILA, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman has affirmed the dismissal from government service of six officials of the National Printing Office (NPO) who are facing graft charges for alleged involvement in a procurement anomaly in 2010.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales announced yesterday that the dismissal orders against the officials stand. Those dismissed were acting director Emmanuel Andaya, Bids and Awards Committee chair Sylvia Banda and BAC members Josefina Samson, Antonio Sillona, Bernadette Lagumen and Ma. Gracia Enriquez. 

Morales said all six would be indicted before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The case stemmed from the procurement of 1,000 boxes of Travel Clearance Certificates (TCC) as requested by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in 2010. 

Investigation showed that Andaya approved the BAC resolution resorting to emergency procurement of the TCCs at a cost of P1,900 per box.  

On Nov. 30, 2010, the contract was awarded to Advance Computer Forms Inc. (Advance) with the lowest calculated and responsive bid of P1,899.95/box for a total contract price of P1.89 million. 

Ombudsman probers said the respondents also authorized the advance delivery of the TCCs even before the notice of award could be issued.    

The Office of the Ombudsman said Andaya and the other NPO officials acted with “manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence” when they awarded the contract to Advance without public bidding as required by the Government Procurement Reform Act. 

It was also established that the conditions for resorting to the alternative mode of procurement were not present. Thus, there was a need for public bidding. 

Andaya’s case became controversial after the respondents were allowed to stay in office even after the dismissal order against them had been issued in July 2015.

Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. was quoted to have said that the motions for reconsideration (MR) filed by the NPO officials warranted their stay in office until the MR has been resolved. 

But under the provisions of Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, “all provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.” 

Rule III, Section 7 of the anti-graft agency’s Rules of Procedure likewise declares that while decisions can be appealed, MRs cannot stop the implementation of a decision.