THE Commission on Audit has reversed the 2017 decision of former Commissioners Jose A. Fabia and Isabel D. Agito that affirmed the notice of charge (NC) against former top officials of the Bureau of Immigration in connection with the alleged under-remittance of P626.33 million revenues.
In an eight-page decision signed on May 30, 2022 but released only this week, the COA Commission Proper granted the motions for reconsideration filed by former Commissioner Marcelino C. Libanan and former OIC Commissioner Roy Almoro, who were previously held liable by auditors together with service contractor Datatrail Corp.
Records showed the audit team and the supervising auditor for BI issued the NC on June 30, 2014 alleging that there was under-remittance and underpayment of the annual guaranteed fee on the automation of the Alien Certificate of Registration Identity Card under an amended build-operate-and-transfer (BOT) agreement between the bureau and Datatrail.
In its August 8, 2017, ruling the COA Commission Proper noted that the amended BOT deal modified the revenue sharing from 50-50 percent to 67-33 percent in favor of Datatrail on the yearly renewals by aliens who do not have Immigrant Certificates of Residency (ICR).
Likewise, the BI has no share in the gross revenue from the five-year renewal of the ICRs. The amendment also extended the cooperation from 10 years to 21 years.
Almoro and Datatrail were held liable as signatories to the 2007 amendment to the BOT Agreement while Libanan was implicated having reportedly signed the escrow agreement and effecting the provisions of the amendment.
However, former COA chairperson Rizalina Noval Justol and Commissioners Roland Café Pondoc and Mario Gonzales Lipana overturned the 2017 ruling and ordered the NC lifted.
They held that contrary to the position of the audit team and the supervising auditor, the amendment of the BOT Agreement did not require prior approval from the Investment Coordination Committee (ICC) or the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).
The same absence of ICC approval was invoked as the basis for declaring the amendment as “void, inoperative and without legal effect.”
However, in its most recent decision, the COA CP noted that both the NEDA and the Department of Justice, in separate evaluations, found that the amended agreement did not require the approval of the ICC.
