|
THE
fact-finding investigation of the Department of Justice
(DOJ) virtually turned into a venue for Communications
Assistant Secretary Lorenzo Formoso III to defend the
government’s decision to award the US$329-million
national broadband network (NBN) project to China’s ZTE
Co.
In
Tuesday’s inquiry, Formoso reiterated that Amsterdam
Holdings Inc. (AHI), which is being represented by Joey
de Venecia III, has no financial capability to sustain
the project aside from its lack of congressional
franchise to operate a telecommunications firm.
Formoso
described AHI as “a shell company” with a capitalization
of only P5 million when it submitted an unsolicited
proposal to undertake the NBN project.
The
panel, headed by Justice Undersecretary Ernesto Pineda,
mainly focused its questioning on how the NBN contract
came about and the officials involved in the
transactions.
Pineda
defended the conduct of the investigation, saying that
it was not intended to further confuse the people with
regard to the NBN-ZTE scandal.
He added
that the investigation is totally different and more
comprehensive that the investigation being conducted by
the Ombudsman.
Formoso
noted that the supposed NBN-ZTE scam witness Rodolfo
Noel Lozada Jr. was never part of the negotiations,
pertaining to the broadband project.
He said
only himself and 15 engineering experts from the
Department of Transportation and Communications’ (DOTC)
Commission on Information and Communication Technology (CICT)
were always present during negotiations with ZTE
officials regarding the NBN project.
Formoso
said he could not recall seeing Lozada when he presented
the DOTC evaluation to National Economic and Development
Authority (Neda) assistant director Ruben Reynoso in
March 2007, recommending that ZTE’s proposal is the best
for the country as its “technology is cutting-edge and
that the government could expect to recoup its
investment in four years’ time as the Neda placed the
investment rate of return at around 27 percent.”
Formoso
noted that the NBN deal is a government-to-government
transaction and was in line with the memorandum of
understanding between the Department of Trade and
Industry and
China’s
ZTE Co., to cooperate in the development of various
programs in the country, including telecommunications.
The DOJ
also gave Formoso the opportunity to explain the DOTC’s
side on the allegations made by Lozada that the project
was overpriced, since the original proposal was $262
million, which later increased to $329 million.
The DOTC
official noted that the contract price increased by
US$67 million, since the original amount would only
cover 30 percent of the country, while the $329-million
proposal will cover the entire country.
Formoso
explained that there were softwares or applications that
were included in the original proposal of ZTE which the
Philippine government does not need.
This
prompted the Philippine government to ask for the
exclusion of the softwares and instead asked the ZTE to
increase the base stations for the project, resulting in
a higher contract price.
He added
that the ZTE proposal is advantageous to the government,
since it would entail a 20-year loan agreement, at
3-percent annual interest only.
“The
price appeared reasonable to us, considering the due
diligence in evaluating the three companies—Arescom, AHI
and ZTE. What is equally important is the 20-year
loan-term at 3-percent interest rate,” Formoso said.
He also
denied reports that certain government officials
received kickbacks from ZTE as the project was strictly
government-to-government and that there were no middle
men involved in the negotiations.
Formoso
defended the DOTC’s recommendation for a
government-to-government contract instead of the
build-operate-transfer (BOT) proposal of AHI, saying
that “from a theoretical point of view, BOT is more
expensive.”
“At the
end of the day, we will still pay [for the BOT
project],” Formoso said.
He added
that the country would benefit more from a
government-to-government NBN project, considering that
the government is spending P3.7 billion annually for
telecommunications services as compared with P1 billion
a year in interest if the project were funded by a
foreign loan.
After
the hearing, Pineda told reporters that the panel was
able to establish that there is such a contract for the
NBN project and it passed through the regular process.
“Likewise, we were also able to establish that Amsterdam
has no financial capacity to sustain a project such as
this,” Pineda added.
The
panel has invited de Venecia, son of former House
Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. to appear before the panel
on Thursday.
Meanwhile, the panel did not allow lawyer Heraldo Dacayo
to answer questions on behalf of former National
Economic Development Authority chief Romulo Neri, who
recommended the approval of the NBN-ZTE contract.
Instead,
the panel summoned Neri to appear before it on Friday.
The
panel is s tasked to study whether there were violations
of the provisions of Republic Act 9184 or the
Procurement Reform Act committed by any government
official in connection with the NBN-ZTE scandal.
Pineda
said the panel will also scrutinize the affidavits of
those invited by the Senate to testify on the NBN-ZTE
scandal for possible perjury. |