SC upholds ER Ejercito’s graft conviction
The Supreme Court upheld the graft conviction of former Pagsanjan, Laguna Mayor Emilio Ramon Ejercito III, popularly known as Jeorge “ER” Ejercito Estregan, for illegally awarding a contract to an unlicensed insurance company without public bidding.
In a decision promulgated on Feb. 5, the Supreme Court’s First Division found Ejercito and First Rapids Care Ventures (FRCV) owner Marilyn Bruel guilty of violating Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, sentencing them to up to eight years in prison.
The high court has permanently prohibited them from holding public office.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the United Boatmen Association of Pagsanjan (UBAP), which accused Ejercito and other local officials of awarding a contract to FRCV without public bidding.
Under the contract, the company was tasked with providing accident insurance for tourists and boatmen at the Pagsanjan Gorge Tourist Zone, even though the company lacked a license from the Insurance Commission.The Office of the Ombudsman filed charges against them before the Sandiganbayan. The vice mayor was acquitted, but Ejercito, Bruel, and several council members were convicted.
In defending his actions before the high tribunal, Ejercito argued that the company was the only qualified service provider and that public bidding was unnecessary.
For her part, Bruel claimed that the contract was for special services and not insurance.
But the Supreme Court, in its decision on G.R. No. 248699 penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, disagreed with their claims, ruling that the contract was for insurance and therefore classified as “goods” requiring public bidding under the Government Procurement Reform Act.
The Supreme Court explained that procurement done via competitive bidding is intended to protect the public interest by offering the best possible advantages through open competition and avoiding any suspicion of favoritism or anomalies in executing public contracts.
It noted that exceptions to bidding are only allowed in rare cases like emergencies or multiple failed bidding attempts, which were not applicable in the case.
Instead of following the required bidding process, the high court said Ejercito directly awarded the contract to FRCV through “negotiated procurement” without valid justification.
It found that Ejercito knowingly gave FRCV an unfair advantage, bypassing legal procedures and ignoring clear red flags.
According to the high tribunal, the company lacked a Certificate of Authority from the Insurance Commission. It was registered with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) just five days before it offered its services to Ejercito.
“By purposely sparing FRCV from the rigors of the processes under the procurement law and consciously turning a blind eye to irregularities, [Ejercito] gave it unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference,” the Supreme Court said.
Meanwhile, Bruel was found guilty of misrepresenting FRCV’s qualifications and conspiring with Ejercito to secure the contract.
The high court noted that she falsely claimed that FRCV could provide the required services, even though its BIR registration listed it as a computer business.
The Supreme Court acquitted the Sangguniang Bayan members due to a lack of evidence proving they showed favoritism toward FRCV.
The court ruled that the ordinance did not prohibit Ejercito from holding public bidding as it only allowed negotiated procurement, although mistakenly.
