CA reverses ex-DA chief’s dismissal for hog scam

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has overturned a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing former agriculture secretary Luis Ramon Lorenzo Jr. in connection with anomalies in the government’s swine raising program.

In a 14-page decision released yesterday, the CA’s 15th Division granted Lorenzo’s petition of the ombudsman’s 2014 order over the project implemented by the Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corp. (Quedancor), which he also headed.

The CA, in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, said the ombudsman lacked jurisdiction and was not supported by substantial evidence when it found Lorenzo guilty of the administrative charge of grave misconduct.

The ombudsman had dismissed Lorenzo, forfeited his retirement benefits and barred him from reentering government service.

The CA said that contrary to the ombudsman’s claim, “there is no showing” that Lorenzo deliberately violated the requirement of public bidding under the government procurement reform law, Republic Act 9184.

The appellate court also said public bidding is “not applicable” to the implementation of the Quedancor swine program.

Associate Justices Ramon Garcia and Leoncia Dimagiba concurred in this ruling.

The CA ruling, however, applies only to the administrative case against Lorenzo, who is facing graft charges before the Sandiganbayan with 11 other officials of Quedancor over the alleged anomaly.

Established in 2004, the QSP is a credit program intended to support swine raisers in their swine fattening and breeding activities.

Under the program, a farmer-borrower may apply for a loan with Quedancor and receive not cash but supplies such as hogs, gilts, feeds, medicines and technical assistance.

The farmer-borrower can claim these supplies through a purchase order issued by a Quedancor district office and presented to one of the accredited input suppliers.

The ombudsman said by not conducting public biddings for supply contracts, the state-run firm was unable to protect itself against the suppliers’ late deliveries or failure to deliver since the suppliers were not made to post a bond, which is required under RA 9184.