The Philippine government has called on critics to provide proof regarding alleged conflict-of-interest claims against PAGCOR Chairman and CEO Alejandro H. Tengco. Officials emphasized that evaluations must follow evidence-based procedures and due process when investigating potential regulatory violations.
Palace Calls for Substantiated Proof
Malacañang, the executive branch headquarters, requested evidence through Press Officer Claire Castro. She noted the government would assess whether procurement procedures followed established rules and whether Tengco maintained any direct connections to the companies involved.
Castro highlighted that no official anomalies have been documented and that Tengco has consistently denied personal involvement in government contract awards. The statement underlined that evidence and due process form the foundation of any government assessment.
Nationstar Development Corp. Controversy
Media reports revealed that Nationstar Development Corp., a construction company founded by Tengco in 2015 and now owned by his children, secured over 14 government contracts worth PHP7.1 billion (US$120.14 million) since 2022, coinciding with Tengco’s leadership at PAGCOR.
Tengco rejected claims that his position influenced contract awards. He maintained that he fully divested from Nationstar upon assuming PAGCOR leadership and began transferring ownership to his children as early as 2019.
Legal Perspective on Conflicts of Interest
Tengco argued that Philippine law defines conflicts of interest only when public officials retain financial interests in transactions requiring official intervention. Since PAGCOR does not oversee public infrastructure contracts and Tengco claims complete divestment, he contends no legal conflict exists.
He also emphasized that Nationstar obtained contracts through lawful competitive bidding, including consortium arrangements, and operates as a legitimate business serving both public and private clients.
Government Review Process
Castro explained that the government will focus on whether procurement procedures were correctly followed and if Tengco had verifiable connections to contract awards. She clarified that any assessment of conflict-of-interest rules falls under Congressional authority, not executive discretion.
The palace reiterated it will apply evidence-based analysis and maintain due process standards, refusing to pre-judge Tengco’s conduct without documented proof of impropriety.
Public Scrutiny Continues
The allegations arose from investigative reports on Nationstar’s government and private contracts. Despite Tengco’s repeated denials and legal defense, public debate persists regarding the appropriateness of familial business connections to government officials.
The government’s insistence on evidence underscores its commitment to fact-based evaluation rather than speculation in regulatory assessments.
