OGCC chief denies corruption amid ouster threat

MANILA, Philippines — Government Corporate Counsel Rudolf Philip Jurado yesterday denied corruption charges against him amid the threat of President Duterte to remove him from office.

Jurado issued a statement saying the allegations against him were “invented by his subordinates who were affected by reforms he implemented in the office” – especially in relation to excess allowances they received that were earlier flagged by the Commission on Audit (COA).

He specifically belied the insinuations involving his legal opinion allowing the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone (APECO) to grant permits outside its controlled area and his supposed approval of a 75-year permit to a casino operator. 

Jurado explained APECO is a government operated and controlled corporation. It had requested for an opinion if it is allowed under its amended charter to operate outside the Aurora Economic Zone and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA).

Citing the APECO Charter (Republic Act 9490) as amended by RA 10083, Jurado said “it is clear that APECO is allowed to operate outside the Aurora Economic Zone as long as it is within a PEZA controlled area.”

He recounted Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Ma. Dolores Rigonan made the draft opinion citing the provision and this was forwarded to Deputy Government Corporate Counsel Elpidio Vega who, however, reversed it.

Jurado said he agreed with the first opinion after reviewing the Charter when the revised draft opinion passed his office.

Jurado also denied the allegation that he approved a 75-year casino permit.

“I really do not know what the OGCC lawyers were referring to when they alleged a supposed corruption in approving a 75-year casino permit, because the OGCC has no power to approve casino permits or grant gambling franchises. I hope that the OGCC lawyers could show this 75-year casino permit I supposedly issued,” he said.

Jurado believes his conflict with OGCC lawyers stemmed from actions he took following the COA report last March, which flagged that OGCC lawyers have been receiving, among others, “secret allowances” directly from some government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs).

“They alleged that I am corrupt while simultaneously brushing aside the fact that they are the ones being investigated and audited by the COA,” he stressed.

The STAR reported earlier that COA flagged the excess allowances received by OGCC lawyers. State auditors cited its Circular No. 85-25-E, which provides that allowances of government personnel should not exceed 50 percent of their annual basic salary.

It revealed that five OGCC lawyers – Deputy Government Corporate Counsel Elpidio Vega and OGCC lawyers Medardo Devera, Manuel Santos Jr., Efren Gonzales and Aniceto Calubaquid Jr. – received excess allowances totaling P621,717.73 last year.

It was also found that the OGCC lawyers received some of their allowances directly from client GOCCs without deduction and payment of taxes.

Because of the COA report, Jurado said he issued an order requiring OGCC lawyers to comply with the audit body by, among others, “refraining from collecting these so-called allowances/honoraria directly from GOCCs and to instead remit the same to the office (i.e., OGCC) through its Accounting Section for monitoring purposes” and “inform their client GOCCs to pay such allowances and honoraria to the office (i.e., OGCC and not directly to the OGCC lawyer concerned).”

After the OGCC lawyers refused to follow his orders, Jurado said he was “constrained to serve, inform and direct the clients GOCCs to cease/refrain from further giving these allowances secretly to GOCC lawyers.”

“Now, these OGCC lawyers are trying to malign my reputation by alleging that I am supposedly incompetent and corrupt,” he lamented.

Even before the COA issued its observation report, Jurado recalled that when he began work last April 2017, some OGCC officers tried to convince him to receive allowance worth P500,000 per month but he turned it down.

“I also refused to receive the P1.2 million worth of service vehicle and instead ordered the budget for such vehicle to be returned to the Department of Budget and Management,” he said.