Case I.

9 CEBU CITY BARANGAYS ROAD & BRIDGE PROJECTS (CEBU CITY,

2010)

At least nine southern Cebu City barangays were found to have used
substandard materials in their infrastructure projects.
Engineers of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) central office
which inspected the projects recommended corrections made.
The projects include road concreting in the mountain barangays of Babag, Sudlon I and
II, Sinsin, Bonbon, Toong, Pamutan; river bank protection, concreting and drainage
system rehabilitation in barangay Kalunasan; construction of covered court in barangay
Suba and the drainage system project in Inayawan. These barangay projects were
among the P156 million worth of projects awarded to E.M. Arante
Construction in 2009. The firm bagged the contracts for 72 projects in 16 barangays. In
theirinspection report, the DPWH engineers said they found cracks in the road projects
in Babag, Sudlon I and II, Sinsin, Bonbon and Toong.
The road project near the Maomawan cemetery in Babag lacked asphalt sealant which
caused the weakening of its joints. Major and minor scaling were also found on various
parts of the road.
Engineers said that earth was used on the shoulders of the concrete pavement in
Bonbon proper instead of the aggregate base course specified in the contract. The road
project in sitio Gila-gila had poor worksmanship while the booming on its surface was
excessive.

Substandard boulders were also found in the riverbank embankment in barangay

Kalunasan instead of hard and durable stones while a single twisted wire was used as
mesh to secure its gabion structures. The required grouted riprap could not also be
found above the gabion structure.
The DPWH inspection team recommended the removal and replacement of
substandard materials to make these projects conform to DPWH standards. “Require
the concerned contractor, at his own expense, to institute repair works on the structures
with defects and deficiencies,” DPWH engineers said in their report. The DPWH team
submitted their Oct. 6 inspection report to DPWH Undersecretary Raul Asis, a copy of
which was furnished to Cebu South District Rep. Tomas Rep. Osmena. The DPWH
engineers cited the admission of engineer Raul Buscato of the Association of Barangay
Councils (ABC) that no tests (were) conducted on the in-placed materials for all the
projects which resulted in lack of quality control.
Lack of supervision during the implementation of the projects was evident, since only
one engineer from the ABC was available to supervise all the projects of the barangays,
the report said. They DPWH asked the city government to assign more engineers and
laboratory technicians to check the quality of the projects implemented by winning
contractors and to establish a quality control program to make sure the city is not
shortchanged.
Osmena, the city mayor when the projects were implemented, had authorized the
release of aid to barangays for the implementation of infrastructure projects in 2009
under the Community Micro Assistance Program. But shortly after the May election,
reports reached Osmena that some of the projects were substandard, raising suspicions
that someone made money from the projects. Under the micro assistance program,
barangays are given funds by the City Hall and allowed to bid out their infrastructure
projects while the engineering office of the ABC supervises their implementation.
Osmena requested the DPWH central office to evaluate and assess the projects in
question.
The DPWH team included Engrs. Teodulfo Añonuevo, Lino Reynera and Teodoro Viyar
Jr. of the Quality Assurance Unit and the Bureau of Research and Standards of the
DPWH central office. They were in Cebu City from Sept. 13 to 17 to inspect the
barangay projects. With the release of the DPWH findings, Osmena said the
Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit (COA) now have the needed evidence to
investigate the matter. Osmena said that sending those involved and found guilty to jail
is a good deterrent against irregularities in the future. Osmena said he smells a
conspiracy from the conception of the projects all the way up to their implementation.
CASE II. OZONE DISCO (Quezon City, 1996)

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division on Thursday found seven former

officials of the Quezon City engineer's office and two private individuals
guilty of graft in connection with the deadly fire at the Ozone Disco Club
on March 19, 1996, 18 years after the tragedy claimed 162 lives.
They were sentenced to six to ten years in jail.
Convicted of graft and corrupt practices are:
 City Engineer Alfredo Macapugay
 Former City Engineer Renato Rivera Jr.
 Building Inspector Edgardo Reyes
 Chief, Enforcement and Inspection Division, Francisco Itliong
 Chief, Processing Division, Feliciano Sagana
 Engineer Petronillo De Llamas
 Building Inspector Rolando Mamaid

Private respondents Hermilo Ocampo and Ramon Ng, members of the board of
directors and stockholders of Westwood Entertainment Co. Inc. which managed the
Ozone disco, were also found guilty of similar charges.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, the
court said that the officials had been remiss in approving the building permit of the disco
bar. Despite having faults in the design and defects in the electrical and safety systems,
the authorities still issued two building permits and a certificate of occupancy to the
disco, a report on 24 Oras that aired on Thursday said.
"There can never be a slapdash approval of a building permit and certificate of
occupancy. To shrink from this duty will certainly run at risk all safety standards
contemplated by the National Building Code," the decision said.

According to the report, the fire broke out from an overloaded circuit from the disc
jockey's booth. The victims, who were mostly celebrating their graduation, were trapped
inside Ozone Disco because there were no emergency exits. Everyone ran to the
entrance door, which opened inward instead of the other way. Quezon City
Administrator Aldrin Cuña said Macapugay, Sagana, and Itliong had already retired,
Mamaid was on a medical leave, Rivera was in the private sector, and Reyes had
transferred to the Manila City Hall. De Llamas wasn't at his office when a team from
GMA News dropped by. The team was also trying to contact Ocampo and Ng for
comment but they had yet to respond.

Those convited were given 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration. The
Sandiganbayan in 2007 acquitted Macapugay of criminal liability in the same case. The
Sandiganbayan Third Division at that time said the court was unconvinced about the
culpability of Macapugay, whose office was mandated at the time of the inferno to
ensure the enforcement of building safety regulations. The Sandiganbayan ruled then
that prosecutors failed to prove that Macapugay was guilty of reckless imprudence
resulting to multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries for alleged negligence in
verifying the safety of the plans and facilities of the Ozone Disco.
Stricter rules
The city administrator said that even before the Sandiganbayan released its decision,
Quezon City had already imposed stricter rules in issuing building permits. Issuing the
permits was now the task of the Office of the Building Official, instead of the Office of
the City Engineer as before.

References:

Bongcac, D. C. (2010, October 24). DPWH finds projects of 9 brgys. ‘Substandard’.

Inquirer.Retrieved from http://www.globalnation.inquirer.net

Chiu, P. D. (2014, November 20). Ex-QC execs face up to 10 years in prison for Ozone
Disco tragedy. GMA News Online. Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com
CODE OF ETHICS (ACCORDING TO PICE)

Fundamental Principles

Civil engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the civil
engineering profession by:

using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the
environment;
being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their
employers/employees and clients;
striving to increase the competence and prestige of the civil engineering profession; and
supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines.

Fundamental Canons

Civil Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and
shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance
of their duties.
Civil Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.
Civil Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Civil Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
Civil Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and
shall not compete unfairly with others.
Civil Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor,
integrity, and dignity of the civil engineering profession.
Civil Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers,
and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those civil engineers
under their supervision.
Adopted in September 2001 as part of the Manual of Professional Practice for Civil
Engineers published by the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers.
There is an old Egyptian saying, “All contractors are thieves!” Read the
story “The treasure thief”. What is your Reaction if you are the:

a.) Owner – After reading the treasure thief, here are my thoughts about
the owner’s perspective. As the owner, I will be furious on the
contractor because not only he did something that was off the
contract, but also, he tried to steal from me.

b.) Contractor – After reading the treasure thief, here are my thoughts
about the contractor’s perspective. As the contractor, I will only do
things that are included in the contract. I am against the saying “All
contractors are thieves!” because it reflects all contractors including
innocent ones.

c.) Consultant – After reading the treasure thief, here are my thoughts
about the supervisor’s perspective. As the consultant, I think both of
them are wrong or at fault. Judging from the owner’s perspective, I
can’t blame him for distrusting the contractor, but it is also his
responsibility to inspect the site during construction phase. From the
contractor’s perspective, the fault he made was abusing and taking
advantage pf the owner’s trust and ending up in bad terms.