Home » Sports » SEA Games » Graft raps filed vs Dizon over irregular deal with SEAG constructor

Graft raps filed vs Dizon over irregular deal with SEAG constructor






SEA GamesGraft and malversation raps were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman Monday against Bases and Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) President and CEO Vivencio “Vince” Dizon and several others over the reportedly irregular deal made with a Malaysian firm over the construction of sports facilities for the Southeast Asian Games in 2019.

Diego L. Magpantay, President of Citizens Crime Watch Association Inc., filed the complaints against Dizon, MTD Capital Berhad Director Isaac David, Government Corporate Counsel Elpidio Vega, BCDA Senior Vice President for Legal Services Group Atty. Elvira Estanislao, and several other John and Jane Does.

Magpantay wants them to be held criminally liable for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code or Malversation of Public Funds, as well as administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.

The sports facilities were intended for the Southeast Asian Games last year, and it included an aquatic center, an athletic stadium (including a warm-up track), and an athlete’s village with 500 units capable of housing 1,000 people.

Magpantay said that there was an “unlawful execution” of the joint venture agreement (JVA) with MTD Capital Berhad because of the Build Transfer Scheme, which allowed the company to avoid public bidding.

The initial cost of the project was P8.1 billion, but it eventually became P11 billion because the BCDA kept on making “unlawful insertions” in the JVA, all in favor of the Malaysian firm.

One of the conditions of the JVA was that the ownership of the sports facilities shall be transferred to the BCDA upon full payment of P11 billion – P2.2 billion paid in five annual installment plans – and not upon expiration of the JVA.

Magpantay explained that in a JVA, ownership should be transferred to the public corporation upon expiration of the JVA. But here, the transfer will only be made upon full payment.

“This proves that the agreement, insofar as the Sports Facility is concerned, is a Build Transfer Scheme unlawfully embedded in a JV ownership over the Sports Facilities,” Magpantay said in the complaint.


He added that the private corporation is not guaranteed to earn profits in a JVA since the existence of profits would depend on several factors directly or indirectly connected with the business venture or actively entered into by the parties.

But here, MTD Capital Berhad’s profit was guaranteed because of the Build Transfer Scheme, Magpantay said, since it will be paid directly by the public corporation after the private corporation does its obligation that is, building a structure or development of facilities.

“From these, it is thus evident that the agreement by the parties, insofar as the development of Sports Facilities is concerned, is actually a Build Transfer Scheme that was unlawfully embedded in the JVA.”