COA, merely a tool-3

This column is written as I leave the country so the developments might not be right thus this becomes an attempt to clarify and understand how this situation had arisen to the chagrin of the people of this province and the loss of trust in the Commission on Audit.

No matter how the events unfold, the events have to be written so that the future will be able to understand why things took place as they did.

One can even take this as a digression of a historical event.

The impeachment move is but a reflection of the public belief that Gracia Pulido-Tan, the Chairperson of the Commission on Audit, had used her office to serve the interest of SM, a client of her legal firm. From the unfolding events she appears to have allowed COA to be used as a tool to advance the business and financial interests of SM.

The issue here is not whether Ayala Land Inc. won or lost to SM Prime. The issue has transcended that event, and that is something for the courts to decide. At issue is that COA, or more specifically Pulido-Tan, has violated the basic tenets on human relations – answering letters and complying with the law that requires government officials to reply within 15 days of receipt of the communication.

Governor Alfredo Marañon, to repeat, wrote her three letters that she ignored. I learned lately that there were even personal follow-ups but the COA office simply had one excuse after another, rebuffing the attempt to know what happened.

That is one of the articles of impeachment – her unethical conduct in not responding to official communication within the time prescribed by law, not once, but thrice.

The other article of impeachment is gross violation of the Constitution which mandates COA to act or decide on matters brought to it within 90 days. It has been 14 months since the papers were submitted to her office and while in March 2012 she asked that the contract must be signed first, this was also complied with.

Then she sent another team to evaluate, and information says that the team endorsed the contract favorably. But still months passed by and she kept silent.

I think that the Constitution provided for this time limit to prevent exactly the situation, this abuse of authority. Government agencies, no matter how much power was granted to them by the Constitution are expected to use that power for the welfare of the nation and not for the benefit or profit of private parties.

True she inhibited but that is only in the news, nothing officially announced, but we accepted the words of Press Secretary Lacierda that she did. Her actions, however, say differently.

But still the COA did not act as it should, thus the gross violation of the Constitution. According to her office, only she can order the release of COA decisions and by not ordering the release of the decision, she continues to violate the Constitution to the detriment of the welfare of the province and people of Occidental Negros.

Atty. Juan Lubrico, opined during a radio interview by Jun Julita last week that even if she now orders the release of the decision she remains culpable, and therefore impeachable, because she violated the Constitution. The issue has thus deteriorated.

It is actually immaterial now whether the COA decision is favorable or not. She has already sabotaged the biggest project of the province and deprived thousands of people of jobs and opportunities. Thus when the Council of Past Presidents discussed the impeachment proposal the article of economic sabotage was added.

Indeed her action damaged the economy of Negros that could have given livelihood to the thousands of people at this time when the unemployment rate of the country has been rising. Had she acted on time she could have helped reduce the incidence of joblessness.

Why is she refusing to release the COA decision? Is it because it is unfavorable to her legal firm’s client?

Some sectors claim that Ayala Land Inc. is withdrawing because it has inside information that COA would reject the contract and, to save face, Ayala Land Inc. is already pulling out.

That idea does not jibe with normal thinking because if it is unfavorable, I am certain Pulido-Tan would have released it. Her problem is that the provincial government could raise the issue to the Supreme Court and there she will have to justify not only why she rejected the contract, but more importantly it took her months to decide.

No one can blame those who suspect that the decision is favorable but she is not releasing it until SM shall have taken a head start in developing their matchbox mall at the reclamation area.*

back to top