Hontiveros: Don't preempt Committee Chairman's decision on SEA games probe

Calling for an investigation into possible irregularities surrounding the construction of the sport facilities used in the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games tarnishes neither the achievements of our athletes nor the honor they have earned for the country. They should not be used as an excuse to sweep the issue under a rug. After all, it was our athletes who won the medals, and not the persons responsible for a project flagged as anomalous by the Commission on Audit (COA).

This is about accountability, not politics. This is about the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BDCA) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) answering the questions raised by the COA vis-a-vis the construction of the sports facilities used in connection with the SEA Games.

The Chairs of the Senate Committees within whose competence this matter falls should not be preempted. It should be left to their sound judgment as to when and how an inquiry should be conducted. While certain aspects of this issue are already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman, Joint Ventures involving the government remain a legal gray area governed by multiple, and possibly conflicting, sets of rules: the 2013 NEDA Rules on JVs, the charters of GOCCs, and even rules formulated by Local Government Units.

There is thus a need for Congress to step in and provide some clarity to avoid the exact incident red-flagged by the COA; of projects being dressed up as JVs to side-step public bidding requirements.

The Senate should not be prevented from doing its job.

Sa TOTOONG halimbawa ng Joint Venture, sa gobyerno manggagaling ang lupa at sa private partner manggagaling ang kapital para mabuo ang proyekto. Walang perang lalabas sa bulsa ng taumbayan, kaya maaring may dahilan kung bakit hindi ganoon kahigpit ang public bidding requirements pag JV.

Pero sa tinatawag nilang "Joint Venture" sa gitna ng BCDA and MTD Berhad, ang lupa at ang pera para sa proyekto ay parehong nanggaling sa taumbayan. Walang tinayang kapital ang MTD Berhad.

Kaya sinabi kong may bahid na PEKE ANG JOINT VENTURE dahil pinalabas ng BCDA na nag-ambag ng pera ang MTD Berhad. Ngunit ang pera na iyon ay pina-utang ng DBP at sa huli, ang pinang-bayad sa utang na ito ay kinuha sa bulsa nating mga taxpayer. Kaya joint venture nga ba ito, o ginisa tayo ng BCDA sa sarili nating mantika?

At dahil pinagmukhang Joint Venture ang proyekto, hindi ito dumaan sa public bidding. Kaya hindi natin alam kung nakatipid ba talaga tayo sa P9.5 bilyon na binayad natin.

May mga katanungan din tungkol sa utang na nanggaling sa DBP. Wala pang isang buwan, aprubado na agad ang 9.5 Bilyong Pisong utang. Saan ka nakakita ng bangkong ganoon: parang nagmamadali maglabas ng pera? May mga katanungan din tungkol sa cash flow ng proyekto at kung ano ang ginamit na collateral. That is why we need to subpoena certain critical documents such as the board resolutions covering the loan to MTD Berhad, the loan/facility agreement itself, the Memorandum from Management seeking approval for the loan, and the Trust Agreement/Mortgage Trust Indenture covering the loan, if any.

Hindi ako ang unang nakapansin nito. This project was flagged as possibly disadvantageous to the people by the COA and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). On the other hand, sa mga nagsasabing aprubado ng Asian Development Bank (ADB) ang project, kailan pa naging regulator ang ADB? Has the ADB usurped COA's mandate?

There are just too many questions and it is about time we stopped hiding the answers behind our athletes. Kaya huwag nating daanin sa pagdadabog o ipasa na lang basta-basta sa Ombudsman. Dapat itong imbestigahan dahil napakaraming bahid na nadehado tayo, at para maisaayos at mabigyang-linaw ang batas ukol sa mga Joint Venture.