Tuazon called up The STAR to make the corrections. The statement, which said administrative charges filed by the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) against PEA officials were "without basis," was published in The STAR yesterday.
"I want to make the necessary corrections because President Arroyo might get mad over the inaccuracies in the statement... Ako madadale nito (I’m culpable for this)," Tuazon said.
He admitted the PR man "has the go signal to answer" the charges filed by the PAGC against the PEA officials. Tuazon said he will confront his PR man for releasing a statement without his clearance.
In the statement’s second paragraph, Tuazon was quoted as saying that "the additional costs incurred in the construction of the President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard (PDMB) were allowed by President Arroyo."
"I want to clarify that this is incorrect. The additional costs were allowed in the contract not by Mrs. Arroyo but by (former) President Estrada last Jan. 29, 2000," Tuazon said.
Article 8.1 of the contract between PEA and J.D. Legaspi Construction (JDLC), he noted, says the PEA may at any time "make changes in the schedule and work required under this agreement."
If any changes cause a delay in the project, or an increase or decrease in the work, an "equitable adjustment" in the contract price and completion date can be made based on a mutual agreement between parties to the contract, Tuazon added.
JDLC is the contractor that built 2.3 kilometers of the 5.1-kilometer PDMB. The contract between PEA and JDLC was signed in April 2000.
In the statement’s sixth paragraph, Tuazon was quoted as saying that "under Executive Order (EO) 109 issued by Mrs. Arroyo, presidential approval was no longer required for contracts costing lower than P50 million."
Tuazon corrected this, saying that "it’s not lower, but higher than P50 million."
He explained that under EO 109, projects that underwent public bidding would be signed by the Cabinet secretary concerned. The project would no longer need to be forwarded to Malacañang for review.
"The only exception is if the project is under a negotiated contract over P300 million. The department head would seek the opinion of the Department of Justice if the project contract falls within the exceptions of Presidential Decree (PD) 1594 and EO 292," Tuazon, a lawyer by profession, said.
PD 1594 covers rules, regulations and procedures on government infrastructure projects.
EO 292, the Revised Administrative Code, issued by then President Aquino in 1987, initially required Malacañang’s review of infrastructure projects worth P100 million and above. This was later lowered by Estrada to P50 million.
Prior to EO 109, Mrs. Arroyo issued Administrative Order (AO) 7, which required government agencies to submit changes in the orders of infrastructure projects as stated in their original contracts to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for review.
"AO 7 superseded the approval of Estrada, allowing the changes in the orders in the contract. So PEA followed the new order by Mrs. Arroyo and submitted it to NEDA. But while the documents were with NEDA, EO 109 was issued," Tuazon said.
EO 109, issued last May 27, repealed all other EOs issued by Estrada that required submission of infrastructure documents to Malacañang for review.
Tuazon said that PAGC lawyers may have overlooked EO 109 when they decided to file a complaint against the PEA board of directors, including PDMB scam whistle-blower Sulficio Tagud Jr.
He added that JDLC’s contract was not a fixed contract, contrary to what PAGC said.
Article 8.2 of the PEA-JDLC contract allowed additional works to be done, thus there would be additional costs in the project, Tuazon said.
According to the contract, the additional work would be carried out "immediately upon receiving written approval from the President, provided that the amount of the change order is within the limitations and in accordance with the conditions set forth in PD 1594."
The public should be made aware of these facts, Tuazon, who claims to be the spokesman of the PEA board, said.
"This is a battle of perception. Legally, we know we are right, that the documents would prove we are right. But it’s the public’s perception that counts the most," he said. "We have been crucified before the public and it’s really unfair."