CA affirms dismissal of ex-Pampanga mayor over procurement irregularities

PAMPANGA, Philippines – The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the dismissal of Teddy Tumang, the former mayor of Mexico, Pampanga, and three other officials due to alleged irregularities in the procurement of construction materials from a single supplier during the mayor’s term from 2007 to 2010. 

The CA 8th Division, in its 32-page decision, denied the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by Tumang, former municipal engineer and bids and awards committee vice chairman Jesus Punzalan, former administrative officer Luz Bondoc, and former municipal accountant Perlita Lagman. They were earlier found liable for grave misconduct.

The CA also upheld the penalty against Tumang, Punzalan, Bondoc, and Lagman, which includes permanent disqualification from holding public office, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and a ban on taking civil service examinations.

Rappler has reached out to Tumang but has yet to receive a response as of writing. 

The Office of the Ombudsman ordered Tumang’s dismissal in August 2023 and approved the filing of criminal cases against him and several others. The Ombudsman found that the municipality of Mexico violated Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act. In its decision, the CA cited the failure to conduct a public bidding for the base course materials, instead opting for shopping as an alternative method.

Based on the complaint against the officials, the funds for the purchased materials were released through four disbursement vouchers and four checks amounting to P772,447.60. The funds were approved and signed by Tumang even without the required signature and certification from the municipal accountant. 

“All these transactions were awarded and paid to Buyu despite its questionable capacity as a supplier as established by the fraud auditors of the Commission on Audit,” the complaint read.

The complaint also alleged that no base coarse and other construction materials were delivered nor given by the municipality of Mexico to its six barangays: Sta. Cruz, Sta. Maria, Tangle, Cawayan, Eden, and San Patricio.

“The alleged procurement of the base coarse and other materials earmarked for the (six) barangays in the total amount of P902,500 turned out to be ghost or inexistent purchases and deliveries,” it added.

Tumang, in his defense, cited the condonation doctrine. However, the CA stressed that the condonation must be raised at the “earliest opportunity” during the administrative proceedings. As this defense was not presented in time, it is considered waived, the CA said. Condonation doctrine means that “if a public official is reelected, any administrative offense committed during a previous term is deemed condoned or forgiven,” according to jurisprudence.

In a recent interview with local media, Tumang continued to assert that the allegations against him fall under the said doctrine, adding that he was still entitled to file an MR, which he had already submitted.

“Pekalawe ne ning CA itang kekaming MR na makaustu na kami man basta tukyan de itang meging itang Aguinaldo doctrine a ita, na entitled ku, ma-grant ya ing kekaming MR,” Tumang said in Kapampangan.

(The CA checked our MR, which is just appropriate so long as they will follow that Aguinaldo doctrine, which is what I am entitled to have, they will grant my MR.)

“At itang MR pakasala ke. Me-reelect kung 2010 entitled na ku. 2008, 2009 la reng kasu. 2016 me-reelect kung pasibayu, entitled na ku na naman. Me-abandon ya pamu ing Aguinaldu doctrine itang last election 2016. Retang me-reelect 2016 entitled la pa ketang Aguinaldo doctrine,” Tumang added.

(And that MR, I would highlight. I was reelected in 2010, I was already entitled then. My cases were in 2008, 2009. I was again reelected in 2016, to which, again, I am entitled. The Aguinaldo doctrine was only abandoned in the last election in 2016. Those who were reelected in 2016 are still entitled to that doctrine.)

Back in June, the Sandiganbayan 1st Division dismissed the graft complaints against Tumang and businessman William Colis of Buyu Trading due to “inordinate delay.” Tumang and Colis were charged with graft related to the irregular purchase of the base coarse and other construction materials.

The anti-graft court noted that the preliminary investigation spanned 6 years, 4 months, and 12 days from the time of the filing of the complaint on December 13, 2017, to the filing of information with the Court on April 25, 2024. 

The Sandiganbayan also found that the delay, which was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, was unconvincing.

“Similarly, the Court cannot give weight to the prosecution’s blanket invocation of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is inaccurate to say that the entire machinery of government was forced to a complete standstill for more than three years. Nonetheless, courts, for one, exerted all measures to adjust to the public health crisis by allowing the electronic filing of pleadings and the conduct of remote hearings to assure that the justice system continued to operate and that the courts were able to dispense justice,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“In sum, the Court finds that there was inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation before the Ombudsman and that the same was in violation of the accused’s right to speedy disposition of their case,” the resolution stated. – Rappler.com