A GROUP advocating good governance on Monday urged the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate anew if House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez benefited from the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (Naia) Terminal 3’s build-operate-transfer contract with the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco).
In a 16-page letter-complaint addressed to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, the Pinoy Aksiyon for Governance and Environment (PAGE) said the antigraft body should investigate Alvarez in light of the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court favoring the Manila International Airport Authority-Naia Association of Service Contractors (Maso).
“The Supreme Court’s decision in 2005 should have paved the way for a more thorough preliminary investigation of this case, but it appears that no resolution has yet been made,” the group said.
“We are not unmindful of the fact that this complaint was initiated by the Maso, but we, the people, are no less interested in its just resolution. We appeal to the Honorable Ombudsman to shine a light on Maso’s complaint,” it said.
It can be recalled that Maso filed a plunder case against Alvarez and several other government officials before the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged anomalous deal.
The Ombudsman, however, dismissed the case, prompting Maso to file another case before the Supreme Court.
In alleging that the Piatco contract was illegal, Maso won favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.
PAGE insisted that Alvarez should be charged with plunder, violation of Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and violation of Section 9 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials for having business interests with Wintrack Builders Inc.
Alvarez’s wife, Emelita Alvarez, was one of the incorporators of Wintrack, which was subcontracted in 2014 to clear below-ground debris at the Naia compound without the benefit of a public bidding. According to PAGE, Emelita’s shares in Wintrack were deemed as conjugal property under the Family Code, giving Alvarez direct interest in the company.
“Representative Alvarez was prohibited by the Constitution from maintaining such interest: the Constitution provides that members of Congress may not be indirectly interested in any contract with the government during their term of office,” the group said.
“It is time for the Ombudsman to investigate if Alvarez is liable because the government paid Wintrack more than P132.5 million,” the letter-complaint read.