By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
InterAksyon

THE information technology (IT) consultant hired by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno was receiving a higher salary than she was.

However, the high court’s resident IT specialist said the development in their Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP) was “not substantial” despite the hiring of the expert.

“The hardware side . . . those are the ones that’s almost finished. But for the application side, only the judiciary email is ongoing,” lawyer Carlos N. Garay, Management Information Systems Office (MISO) acting chief said.

Mr. Garay acknowledged that the EISP, which includes the automation of the country’s courts, would take several years and requires the setting up of infrastructure, nationwide connectivity, network security, data management and software applications.

Earlier, Ms. Sereno said the EISP would speed up adjudication of cases, increase personnel productivity and improve court and case management.

To help steer this automation, the Supreme Court hired Helen P. Macasaet, who received a monthly salary of P250,000 from 2014 to 2017. This was bigger than the P233,000-per-month salary of Ms. Sereno.

In his impeachment complaint against Ms. Sereno, lawyer Lorenzo G. Gadon alleged that the chief magistrate had betrayed public trust when she hired an IT consultant with an excessive compensation without public bidding, in contravention of existing laws, Commission on Audit (CoA) rules, and public policy.

Lawyer Michael B. Ocampo of the Office of the Chief Justice said he was the one who had negotiated the process of procurement of Ms. Macasaet’s services with the former MISO head. He denied being biased in the process of hiring of Ms. Macasaet as an IT consultant.

“It’s a master plan to automate 2,700 courts nationwide . . .it’s like automating a big organization,” Mr. Ocampo said, adding that this required a highly technical consultant.

Mr. Garay said that as head of the MISO, he did not need any IT consultant.

“When I came to the Supreme Court, I was confident of my own abilities, so I don’t need a general IT consultant . . . probably, I would get a specialized consultant,” he said.

Ms. Macasaet said she believed her compensation was commensurate with her experience in the field and the service she gave to the high court.

She also said that she did not get the P250,000 in full every month, but only around P80,000 after deducting all taxes and expenses related to her work.

“Excluding all personal expenses, I would be getting more or less a net of P80,000, which I used to buy makeup, decent clothes, pair of shoes to face the judges and the justices,” she told the panel.

ALLEGED TAX EVASION
Also on Wednesday, the House committee on justice directed the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to begin an investigation on Ms. Sereno’s possible tax liabilities amid her alleged failure to file her statement of assets liabilities and net worth (SALN) for 17 years when she was still a law professor at the University of the Philippines (UP).

Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo V. Umali, chairperson of the committee, tasked BIR deputy commissioner Arnel Guballa to produce a report on or before Feb. 19.

Among the allegations in the impeachment complaint against Ms. Sereno was her failure to declare in her SALN from 2010 to 2016 the P30 million she earned as one of the private counsels of government in the arbitration case involving the expropriation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3.

The House panel is on its 14th hearing on the impeachment case, this time, to determine if there was probable cause to impeach her.

Mr. Gadon said Ms. Sereno, who was with the UP College of Law from 1986 to 2006, only filed SALN in 1998, 2002, and 2006.

The BIR submitted to the committee certified copies of Ms. Sereno’s income tax return from 2004-2009.

Mr. Guballa said Ms. Sereno registered as a professional earning her income as a lawyer from a law office.

As to inquiries about her payment of taxes from her earnings on the Piatco case, Mr. Guballa said the BIR has no formal investigation yet.

“We are still collating information. We can answer those questions when we have conducted a formal investigation,” he said.

“We will try our best in two weeks. . . . I will try my best to come up with a proposed deficiency or whatever we can made regarding the income the Chief Justice had made,” Mr. Guballa added.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR