TABUK CITY, Kalinga – The Office of the Ombudsman granted Mayor Darwin C. Estran͂ero’s motion for partial reconsideration and dismissed the violation of the pertinent provisions of Republic Act (RA) 3918 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act charges that were filed against him paving the way for his reporting back to work effective April 1, 2024.
In an 11-page consolidated order handed down by the Ombudsman, it pointed out that the allegation of the complainants of overpricing in the city government’s purchase of medical supplies and devices at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic was not adequately established in the eight cases that were filed.
Earlier, the Ombudsman recommended the filing of violation of the provisions of RA 3019 against the mayor for the purchase of the alleged overpriced medical equipment and supplies but dismissed the charges against the members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) because there was no irregularity in the performance of their duties and responsibilities in the procurement process and the suppliers since they did not violate the provisions of the Price Act relative to the assailed purchase at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The order anchored its decision in a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Macairan versus People of the Philippines where it pronounced that in assessing whether or not there was overpricing, a specific comparison with the same brand, features and specifications as those purchased in the questioned transaction should be made. Further, the report upon which the proof of overpricing is based should include a canvass of the different suppliers of the identical products with their corresponding prices. Absent this evidence, the Court cannot reasonably conclude that the price of the goods subject of the questioned transaction was actually exorbitant.
The order emphasized that in the said cases, no proof was offered to demonstrate that the complainants or the Commission on Audit (COA), or any other entity, conducted a comparison of the prices offered by different suppliers of goods of the same brand, features and specifications as those purchased in the questioned transactions. It was not also clearly proven that the items or goods listed under Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2020-01, were of the same brand, features, specifications as those that were actually purchased by the local government., thus, without the said data, the conclusion that the goods in the said cases were overpriced has no basis.
“Finally, complainants failed to establish that there were suppliers who were willing to sell the goods in question at the prices fixed by Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2020-01. This office recognizes that during the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, the prices of surgical masks N95, respirators and personal protective equipment (PPE) surged: that supplies took months to deliver and market manipulation became widespread, with stocks frequently sold to the highest bidder. Unarguably, Estran͂ero cannot be faulted for acquiring these goods, although alleged to be abnormally higher than their usual prices, as they were urgently needed for the protection and security of his constituents,” the order stressed.
In his motion for partial reconsideration, the mayor was able to present the approval made by the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (CDRRMC), an inter-agency body composed of department heads and representatives from accredited civil society organizations (CSOs) and concerned national government agencies, on the prices of the medical supplies and devices that were submitted by the City Health Officer after a thorough deliberation at that time. He also attached to the approval made by the CDRRMC the minutes of the said meeting to prove that the decision on the prices of medical supplies and devices had been deliberated upon with utmost transparency.
The BAC and the City General Services Office used the approval of the CDRRMC in taking the necessary steps to procure the said medical supplies and devices needed through the proper procedures for the conduct of negotiated procurement under emergency cases.
Estran͂ero argued that the complainants failed to prove that the medical supplies and devices subject of the cases filed against him could be bought from other suppliers who are willing to sell them at a price lower than the prices paid for by the local government.
Moreover, he relied in good faith on the expertise of the members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) in the procurement of the medical supplies and devises in question.
Mayor Estrañero’s actions were prompted by extraordinary circumstances calling for the need to immediately secure and protect the residents of the city, especially its medical frontliners.
He asserted that the contracts he entered into during the COVID-19 pandemic were not grossly disadvantageous to the government it resulted to the saving of thousands of lives who might have been exposed to the deadly virus that might have caused loss of lives if not for the timely actions from the local government.
According to him, under the law on supply and demand, if the supply of a good outstrips the demand for it, the prices will fall; however, if the demand exceeds the supply, the prices will considerably rise.
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, he asserted that suppliers took advantage of the shortage of medical supplies, thus pushing the prices above the acceptable levels. Nevertheless, he was left with no other choice except to buy the medical supplies as they were urgently needed by the frontliners to perform their duties and responsibilities that helped save thousands of residents from being exposed to the virus.
Estran͂ero explained that he did what was needed to be done to avoid an evil or injury which actually existed; hence, he is entitled to the justifying circumstance under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal code where his timely action in procuring the medical equipment and supplies at the prevailing cost actually saved thousands of lives from being exposed to the deadly virus and protected them from the health hazard.
In the alternative, he invoked the exempting circumstances under the pertinent provisions of the same in as much as he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. By Dexter A. See