Davao mayor says he is accountable for contracts with Sara-linked firm

By Francessca S. Abalos

DAVAO CITY Mayor Sebastian Z. Duterte on Tuesday said he remains accountable for city government contracts awarded to a company in which his sister, Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio, declared a stake, despite delegating authority to sign them, he told the Senate impeachment court on Tuesday.

Testifying as a hostile witness before the court, Mr. Duterte confirmed that he serves as the city’s head of procuring entity, making him accountable for procurement decisions involving GenCorp Industries, Inc.

Prosecution lawyer Theodore O. Te established that the mayor had delegated signing authority to Assistant City Administrator Tristan Dwight P. Domingo, who signed the city’s contracts with GenCorp.

“You are aware, Mr. Mayor, that delegating your signing authority to Domingo does not delegate your accountability as the [head of the procuring entity]?” Mr. Te asked. “Of course,” Mr. Duterte replied.

The mayor said he neither personally reviews nor approves every contract awarded by the city government. He also said he had not heard of GenCorp until it was mentioned during his sister’s impeachment proceedings.

Senator-Judge Erwin T. Tulfo pressed him on whether he would investigate a possible conflict of interest arising from the Vice-President’s declared stake in the company.

“Well, as long as my sister’s name, the Vice-President’s name, was not on the contract,” he said. “Then, there’s nothing.”

The prosecution is examining whether the city’s transactions with GenCorp constituted a conflict of interest because Ms. Duterte declared herself a stockholder in the company in her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

The mayor’s testimony also exposed a discrepancy between Davao City’s records and procurement data presented to the impeachment court.

Mr. Duterte said the city had awarded 19 contracts to GenCorp, four more than the 15 recorded in documents presented by Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) division chief Rendell P. Sopeña.

Mr. Sopeña earlier testified that 11 of the 15 contracts were awarded through negotiated small-value procurement, which does not require competitive public bidding.

Mr. Te requested a recess to allow both sides to examine about 100 pages of subpoenaed documents submitted by the mayor.

The prosecutor said 15 contracts matched the PhilGEPS records, while four additional transactions did not appear in the records earlier presented by Mr. Sopeña.

Defense lawyer Justin Nicol B. Gular objected to describing the four contracts as absent from PhilGEPS records, arguing that the evidence merely showed that no testimony had been presented about them.

Mr. Duterte said he could not explain the discrepancy but maintained that the documents submitted to the court reflected the city’s records.

“I cannot explain why that reflected on the PhilGEPS data but [these are] our records,” he said. “So the subpoena requested the transactions of GenCorp with the city, so I had to provide what we have on record.”

The impeachment court also upheld the Vice-President’s objection to a prosecution request seeking her admission or denial of facts involving more than 100 financial records.

House prosecutor and Akbayan Rep. Jose Manuel Tadeo I. Diokno filed the request on Sept. 8, arguing that it would narrow the disputed issues and expedite the trial.

Ms. Duterte submitted a written objection on Sept. 23.

Defense lawyer Sheila C. Sison argued that compelling the Vice-President to respond would violate her constitutional right against self-incrimination because the requested admissions would amount to testimony against herself.

Presiding Judge and Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero sustained the objection on Tuesday, saying the prosecution could not use the procedure to shift its burden of proof to the respondent.

“If the request is allowed, any material and relevant matter of facts requested for answer will be tantamount to compelling the respondent to be a witness against herself,” he said. “The court deems it necessary to state that discovery cannot be used as a substitute for presenting competent evidence.”

Mr. Escudero said the prosecution must establish its allegations through evidence while giving Ms. Duterte a fair opportunity to contest them.