SPEECH
By Senator Teofisto "TG" Guingona
Press Presentation on PNP chopper probe
Senate Lounge
13 October 2011

Good morning. After six hearings on the questioned purchase of helicopters by the Philippine National Police, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has completed its report. I am pleased to present the salient portions of this report to the media.

SINO ANG DAPAT MANAGOT? (Recommendations on culpability)

This Committee finds CONSPIRACY among and between Mike Arroyo and the officers of the Philippine National Police. With Mike Arroyo's influence, a scheming conspiracy ensured that the Supply Contract will be signed - and that despite the clear fact that the delivered helicopters were clearly used helicopters, these will nevertheless be accepted by the Philippine National Police.

Nagkaisa. Sama-sama sa panloloko. Sama-samang dapat managot si Mike Arroyo, Ronaldo Puno, Jesus Versoza, at ang mga taga-PNP. Walang nagsalita. Walang kumontra. Sabay-sabay ang galaw para lokohin ang mga Pilipino.

Ang taumbayan ay pinagkaisahan at naisahan ng mga taong ito.

BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

What is the basis of the committee's recommendations? Tatlo lamang: LUMA, LAMANG, LABAG.

In summary, the Blue Ribbon Committee finds that:

1. Without a doubt, the helicopters sold to the PNP were used helicopters. Luma ang ibinentang helicopters; second-hand; hindi brand-new.

2. These used helicopters - which were sold and passed off as brand new - cost the Philippine National Police and the government of the Filipino people the amount of P62,672,086.90. The said amount represents a loss on the part of the Filipino people, and gain on the part of those who sold the questioned helicopters. Lamang ang mga nagbentang helicopters.

3. Jose Miguel Arroyo conspired with private individuals and officers of the Philippine National Police and that this conspiracy violates the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Government Procurement Reform Law. Labag sa batas ang ginawang bentahan at lumabag sa batas ang mga sangkot dito.

I. LUMA ang dalawang ibinentang helicopters sa PNP

First, records show that the helicopters sold by FG to the PNP were already in the Philippines in 2004. No one, not a single person, questions the fact that these are used helicopters. Luma, second-hand, hindi brand new.

Second, it is quite clear that these helicopters were used extensively by the Arroyos during the 2004 elections. From the time these were imported into the Philippines until the time that these were sold to the PNP, the Arroyos used them repeatedly, extensively, and fully. Walang kaduda-duda:

Hindi brand new. Sobrang gamit na gamit na. Hindi nakasingligtas ng bago.

II. LAMANG ang may-ari ng helicopter sa PNP sa bentahang ito

It is clear that Mike Arroyo, as the true owner of the helicopters, took advantage of the PNP and robbed the Filipino people of 62 million pesos for used helicopters.

Binili niya ang mga helicopter na ito noong 2004 - oo, noong 2004, brand new pa ito.

Pero matapos ang limang taon, pagkatapos nyang gamitin ng lubos-lubusan ang mga helicopters, di pa siya nakuntento at binenta pa nya ang mga ito sa presyong pang-brand new.

Walang kaduda-duda. Lamang na lamang si Mike Arroyo. At ang nalamangan, ang taumbayan.

III. LABAG sa batas ang buong bentahan

The Committee finds that there was a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, sections 3 (e) and (g):

Section 3(a) punishes those who cause any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

Section 3(g) punishes those who enter, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

For violating the laws of the land, the Committee charges the following with a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:

1. Jose Miguel Arroyo
2. Ronaldo Puno
3. Jesus Versoza
4. Luizo Cristobal Ticman
5. Ronald Dulay Roderos
6. Romeo Capacillo Hilomen
7. Leocadio Salva Cruz Santiago Jr.
8. Jefferson Soriano
9. Herold Ubalde
10. George Piano
11. Luis Saligumba
12. Job Nolan Antonio
13. Edgar Paatan
14. Ermilando Villafuerte
15. Roman Loreto
16. Miguel G. Coronel
17. Oscar F. Valenzuela
18. Conrado L. Sumanga, Jr.
19. Crisostomo DL Garcia

This Committee likewise charges the following for violating the Government Procurement Reform Act for awarding the contract to a supplier that was not legally, technically, and financially capable.

• Jesus Versoza

• Luizo Cristobal Ticman

• Ronald Dulay Roderos

• Romeo Capacillo Hilomen

• Leocadio Salva Cruz Santiago Jr.

• Ermilando Villafuerte

• Roman E. Loreto

• Jefferson Pattaui Soriano

• Herold G. Ubalde

LEGISLATIVE REFORMS

And as the Blue Ribbon Committee's main function is to conduct investigations in aid of legislation, here are our recommendations for legislative reforms:

First, for the ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT:

1. Increase the penalties As of present, the penalties include imprisonment for not less than six years and one month, and not more than fifteen years. We recommend that imprisonment should be increased to not less than twelve years and one day. While not an absolute solution against determined violators of law, the increase in penalty is an assertion of this Committee's stand that graft and corruption should be more stringently addressed.

2. Increase the prescription period of offenses Section 11 of the law should be amended and the prescription of offenses should be changed from fifteen to twenty years. There is a need to ensure that the reach of the law cannot be barred by the mere lapse of time.

3. Provide that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired should not be barred by the passage of time, or by any other related reason

Next, amendments for the GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REFORM ACT:

4. Expand the list of offenses listed Our current procurement law needs to include the stages after bidding and/or negotiation, and award of the contract. In this helicopter probe, we can clearly see that it is also equally important to regulate delivery and acceptance. With this, the Government Procurement Reform Act must include the following offenses:

a. Approving a contract with a bidder that is not legally, technically, and financially capable of entering into a contract; b. Delivering, and accepting goods, products, and services which are different from those approved by the appropriate bids and awards and/or negotiation committee and reflected in the resulting Supply Contract;

The Committee believes that prejudice to the government does not only happen when a procuring entity awards the contract to an unqualified supplier, contractor, and/or consultant. The greater prejudice arises when the government does not receive the goods, projects, and/or services that it paid for. As in the case of the anomalous choppers procurement, even if MAPTRA was a qualified supplier, the government would still have been prejudiced precisely because the choppers delivered were contrary to the contractually promised brand-new goods.

Acts and omissions in the process of delivery and acceptance should thus be penalized if these include, among others, "ghost deliveries, under-delivery, or delivery of inferior quality materials."

5. Require entities to establish and make known the process and corresponding accountabilities in relation to stages other than bidding and/or negotiations First, each procurement entity should release and publish three things: - The procedures by which it establishes standards, priorities, and terms of reference - Clear guidelines as to the process for changing and amending these - A clear list of the recommending and approving authorities

Public officers and private individuals must be penalized should they be found guilty of manipulating these standards to favor specific suppliers, consultants, and/or contractors. It is not enough for them to be penalized under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The mere act of changing specifications, priorities, and/or terms of reference, in breach of established guidelines must be a separate and punishable act.

Second, while it may be a matter of common sense, this Committee nevertheless takes this moment to remind the PNP and every government agency that procures and accepts goods, infrastructure projects and services, to observe due diligence in the performance of their duties.

Part of these duties is that the relevant committees in the procurement process, from the initial stages until the final acceptance of the goods, infrastructure project, or consulting services, should have a member/s who are technically capable in relation to the contract/bid being assessed. This member should have a decision-making authority, rather than a mere recommendatory authority and should be equally liable for acts or omissions in violation of law. During the course of this particular investigation, it was obvious that the officials were simply relying on the defense: "I am not technically capable of assessing these helicopters. I just depended on the recommendation of the technical group."

The Inspection/Acceptance Committee should be given the Supply Contract and the NAPOLCOM specifications upon which they should based their report. In this PNP case, some members of the Inspection/Acceptance Committee were stubborn in their opinion that their only job was to ensure that the goods were in accordance with NAPOLCOM specifications. They admitted that they just assumed that the goods were brand-new, but they were clear in their testimony that they did not know if the Supply Contract itself required brand-new goods.

Lastly, this Committee pushes for the passage of the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL to give definite, clear, and implementable standards for concerned citizens and groups to have access to critical information, like those related to the procurement of goods, infrastructure projects, and consulting services by the government. While the current procurement law allows NGOs and other citizen observers to be present in various stages of the procurement process, the value of their participation can only truly be given meaning if this is guided by accurate and relevant information which is made reasonably available to them by government.

After this session, allow me to invite you to join us as we proceed to the Office of the Ombudsman to file our Complaint against Jose Miguel Arroyo and the PNP officers who conspired to rob the Filipino people yet again.

Thank you.