[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’PEOPLE POWWOW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY HERBERT VEGO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
New Lucena ‘politicking’ not the issue
A NEWS item in this paper last Friday echoed the comment of Iloilo Sangguniang Panlalawigan member Liecel Mondejar-Seville that Mayor Christian Sorongon of New Lucena had political motive in mind when he filed criminal and administrative charges against her. Seville, incidentally, was his predecessor.
The story quoted her as saying, “He knows he will be facing me in the next elections,” in effect declaring her intention to regain the New Lucena mayorship in 2019. It was only because she had exhausted her third straight term that she sought and won a seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in last May’s election.
Of course, Liecel Mondejar-Seville would have wanted Sorongon to lose in order to preserve the family turf. You see, it was her husband Rico whom Sorongon bested, thus ending the Mondejar dynasty that began in 1986 – or three decades ago – when her brother Buen Mondejar was first appointed officer-in-charge of the town and was officially elected in 1988.
Next elected was another brother/mayor, June. Liecel took over in 2007 and won again in 2010 and 2013.
Sorongon, 25, had served as councilor for six years. When he won the mayorship in May this year, he enthused that he had never imagined becoming mayor of his hometown. He would have proceeded to law school had not “public clamor” compelled him to run.
Imputing political motive on Sorongon “to mislead the people” – just because he accused Seville before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas of malversation of public funds – would not be “convincing.” Their political battle over, the issue is no longer “Sorongon vs. Seville”; it’s COA vs. Seville.
What Seville should have done was refute the charges of Sorongon based on the 2015 Commission on Audit (COA) report on the municipality of New Lucena. She has not done so.
In a nutshell, Sorongon had accused the former mayor of malversation of public funds, serious irregularity, grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct unbecoming of a public officer and violations of pertinent COA circulars, among others.
Had he not done that, he would be kicking off from a questionable starting point not of his making. There is need for clearance from the Commission on Audit (COA) on past adverse findings.
In fact, on June 20, 2016, COA state auditor Leonila Nofuente wrote the former mayor to respond to “the most significant audit observations and recommendations” noted during COA’s audit of New Lucena for the year ending December 31, 2015.
Among others, the audit report questioned the disbursement of P2,160,000 for shelter assistance to unidentified Typhoon “Yolanda” victims; unutilized Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) funds amounting to P1,380,103.53, which was not returned to the national treasury; and the award of P1.4-million infrastructure projects to a non-licensed contractor.
“To protect the public funds and property” was how Mayor Sorongon premised his letter-complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman against his predecessor.
To sum up the lengthy COA report, it alleges more than P90 million in questionable amount. Of that, P60-m of municipal properties could not be validated due to lack of records; P25-m was not fairly presented; P1.8 million from 20 percent development fund was used contrary to law; and P3 million had been disallowed.
A clearance from COA is all that Ms. Seville needs to extricate herself from the mess; imputing “political motive” on Mr. Sorongon would be a step backward.
It is not the purpose of this columnist – who is not personally known to the former mayor and the present mayor – to pass judgment on the matter. Suffice it to say that the Fourth Estate has the right to ask and be answered.
Let there be an answer./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
