Lawmakers on Tuesday warned officials of Duty Free Philippines Corp. against possible violation of existing laws for entering into concession agreements with foreign entities, all Hong Kong-based suppliers, for the supply of billions of peso-worth merchandise.
Reps. Mikee Romero of 1-PACMAN party-list and Rodel Batocabe of Ako-Bicol party-list said DFPC officials might be held liable for alleged violation of the Retail Trade Law and Republic Act 9184 or the Procurement Act which prescribes stiffer penalties against foreigners.
At a congressional hearing conducted by the House of Representatives’ committees on good government and public accountability, chaired by Camiguin Rep. Xavier Jesus Romualdo, Romero called the attention of the state-run firm DFPC, for dealing with Jose Ma.Esteban III, who represents one of the foreign companies.
“I think there is conflict of interest here. I don’t think he should in any way be doing business with duty free,” said Romero, an assistant majority leader.
Esteban was the first general manager of DFPC who was appointed to the post in 1987 by then President Corazon Aquino.
He served the retailer of imported products until 1992.
The committee conducted the inquiry into allegedly anomalous contracts that involved DFPC official. Present during the hearing were DFPC officials headed by Vicente Angala, chief operating officer, and board members.
Romero asked the House panel to invite to the next hearing owners and representatives of the foreign firms that DFPC tapped to supply them with imported merchandise and food sold in duty-free stores in the Philippines.
Romero identified the firms as Landmark Management P and C Ltd.; Sportmart Limited, Tonghorn Trading Limited, Transwell Worldwide Ltd., Viewpoint Trading Ltd., Yearsley (F.E) Ltd; Colomba Management (HK) Ltd., EDF Management (Services) LTD; ETC Holdings (HK) Ltd., Goldpoly Company Ltd., Home and Office Ltd., Landmark Management Srvices (LTD). All are based in Hongkong.
He even complained that none of the companies was represented at the hearing.
“Every time you enter into such SDA, these will be considered recurring criminal acts. You have to be very careful about these because you can be implicated,” Romero told the DFPC officials.
Asked if DFPC might have violated the Retail Trade Act for awarding the Hong Kong firms with huge “supply and delivery agreements,” lawyer Carlo Castilo, the firm’s lawyer, replied to Romero “this is possible.”
Aside from violating RA 9184, Batocabe, for his part, said there was a possibility that graft charges would also be filed against the DFPC officials, saying the contracts appeared to be disadvantageous to the government.
“These are foreign-owned firms that are operating outside the country. How can we sue them in case there are serious violations they committed in the contract,” stated Batocabe.
