We had the opportunity to interview Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV on our show Kasangga Mo Ang Langit on DWIZ 882khz 6-7AM.
WHAT’S THE REAL ISSUE?
The Binays have already complained that the inquiry into the alleged overpriced building in Makati is Sen. Trillanes’ way to politically harass their family. This was an allegation that Sen. Trillanes denied as he cited his reasons as to why he launched the inquiry in the first place.
“It was clear that at least P2 billion was earned from that building. The Commission on Audit (COA) even said that no clearance was given for that building. So who benefitted from that amount? We know that at that the time the Mayor was VP Jejomar Binay, and now it is Mayor Junjun Binay. That’s the issue here,” he said.
CHOP CHOP PROJECT?
The witness in the Senate hearing used the term “chop chop” to describe the project. Sen. Trillanes explained that the project was chopped into “cheaper” parts. Meaning that even though it appeared that 5 bidders won the project, in reality they were only one. “So if P500 million was allocated for one phase, the bid of the winner was P499 million something,” he said.
Even the awarding of the project to the winning bidder was fraught with alleged anomalies. What would usually take months due to the technical specifications, pre-bid conference, actual bidding, cost qualification took only two months for this building. “We saw in the PPP that usually it would take 6 months to 1 year for the contract to be really fixed. How unusual that this project only took 2 months,” he said.
RED FLAG IS SEEN
The same bidder would also win over and over again. There was even no attempt at hiding it. “The way I see it, they didn’t think that anyone would ever look into this. But the red flags are so easily seen that’s why even COA Chairman Grace Pulido Tan said that it isn’t true that the building had a COA clearance,” the senator said.
Our Kasanggang Alex Santos then asked why this project was allowed to push through given that it had no clearance. Sen. Trillanes said that this project was no different from the Pork Barrel Scam. “If we hadn’t gone back and checked it, it would never have been discovered. This means that the regular auditors of Makati allowed this to sail through them even without a clearance,” he said.
MEETING BETWEEN SEN.TRILLANES AND ATTY. BONDAL
Sen. Trillanes also explained the meeting between him and Atty. Bondal saying that it happened way before the Senate inquiry was even conceived. “People are saying that he is a member of the Nacionalista Party. He isn’t although he tried initially. He is not a card carrying member of NP. I admit that when we were preparing for this hearing, I talked to Atty. Bondal,” he said.
He explained that this was part of the preparation needed for the hearing so that they can evaluate the need for it given the evidence held by the witnesses. They needed to ascertain that the documents and information were not bogus so that the hearing would not be conducted needlessly.
LAWYERING
The committee chairman has also been accused of lawyering for the witnesses during the Senate hearing due to his use of allegedly unnecessary wordings and his disagreement with his sub-committee chairman.
“The others are blocking the presentation of witnesses. What did they say that was wrong? Bukol? Even Jun Lozada used that before. In fact, when I asked Atty. Bondal what the Tagalog word for overpricing was, he said it was patong. They are all the same. It wasn’t a swear word against Mayor Binay and VP Binay.
CHALLENGE TO INVESTIGATE
Sen. Trillanes urged Sen. Nancy Binay to start investigations of her own, if she is so inclined. “I am now focused on this investigation. But if she wants to investigate Taguig, then she is welcome to. She is also a senator,” he said.
When asked by Alex Santos what the difference between a Senate inquiry and an Ombudsman inquiry was, Sen. Trillanes said that the Senate inquiry is open to the public. “This way people will know what is happening,” he said.
In the same way, the Senate inquiry into the Pork Barrel scam is still continuing even with the existence of a case filed with the Ombudsman. The public information aspect is still there. It is part of our legislative function and oversight function to see how this sailed by COA and to put up remedial measures to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
THE QUESTION!
In the last hearing, former Makati Vice Mayor Ernesto Mercado said that he benefitted from the alleged overpriced Makati City Hall Building 2. But can public testimony be counted as sufficient evidence? If a person stole, should we also look closely at those around him? Is the saying, “TELL ME WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE AND I WILL TELL WHO YOU ARE, ” applicable here?
The former Vice Mayor was a longtime ally of the Binays before a falling out occurred due to the fact that the Binays did not support the former Vice Mayor’s desire to bid for the Mayoral seat.
QUOTABLE QUOTE
“It seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.