Ombudsman dismisses complaints vs UP officials over DiliMall

PREMIER STATE UNIVERSITY. The main building of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City Patrick Roque via Wikimedia Commons (1st UPDATE) UP officials welcome the Ombudsman's ruling that the complainants 'failed to establish a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction' for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed graft and administrative complaints against current and former University of the Philippines officials related to the DiliMall development, citing insufficient evidence for a prima facie case. Complainants alleged that UP officials failed to consult stakeholders and imposed higher rental rates through master lease agreements, but the Ombudsman found no evidence of corrupt motives or legal violations. The Ombudsman ruled that disagreements with university decisions do not establish criminal liability, and the contracts were deemed legally sound, with affected stallholders given priority in the redevelopment process. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. MANILA, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the graft and administrative complaints filed against incumbent and former University of the Philippines (UP) officials over the development of DiliMall in its Diliman campus in Quezon City. In its ruling dated June 22, a copy of which obtained from a Rappler source on Wednesday, August 26, the Ombudsman said it found that the complainants “failed to establish a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction” for the alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act of UP officials, specifically on the following: Section 3(e) or causing any undue injury or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence Section 3(g) or entering into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same Section 3(j) or knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to it or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled Substantial evidence to hold respondents administratively liable for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees was also not established, according to the ruling. Those named respondents in the complaints were UP president Angelo Jimenez; former UP president Danilo Concepcion; UP vice president for development Daniel Peckley Jr.; former vice chancellor for planning and development Raquel Baltazar; CBMS Property Company OPC (also known as CBMS Consultancy); and JoseBizCo Incorporated. Those who filed the complaints in December 2025 were the UP Shopping Center Stallholders Association, Samahan ng Manininda sa UP Campus Incorporated, University Student Council, UP Transport Group, and urban poor and affected residents. Kristian Mendoza, one of the complainants, told Rappler that they filed a motion for reconsideration on Thursday, August 27. Rappler will update this story once complainants send their official statement. Meanwhile, UP welcomed the dismissal of the complaints, adding that the ruling affirmed that no corruption, abuse of authority, or violation of law occurred. It reiterated that its lands “are not for sale but for service.” “The UP Shopping Center and Gyudfood facilities complement the academic environment by easing everyday burdens and allowing the community to focus on learning, research, and public service,” the country’s top state university said. “Small vendors remain integral to campus life, while tenants displaced by the 2018 shopping center fire were invited to relocate in the new spaces at preferential lease rates. UP remains committed to transparency, fairness, and protecting traditions that make it a true public university.” Allegations on failure to consult stakeholders, higher rental rates Complainants alleged that UP officials failed to consult stakeholders prior to the execution of two master lease agreements (MLAs) for GyudFood Hub and Diliman Shopping Center, commonly known as DiliMall. DiliMall is a commercial building that replaced the UP Shopping Center (SC), which was destroyed by fire in 2018. They claimed that the MLAs imposed rental rates and other fees far higher than those previously charged at the old UP SC. For the Ombudsman, the circumstances for Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were not shown by the evidence. “At most, complainants disagree with the university’s decision to enter into the MLAs and the business model adopted for the redevelopment of former UP SC. However, disagreement with the wisdom of an official act does not, by itself, establish criminal liability under Section 3(e),” read part of the ruling. The Ombudsman also said that records show that CBMS Consultancy, which was involved in the MLA for the DiliMall, has existed since 2018, as complainants accused that the company only existed after the contract was executed in January 2023. “CBMS Consultancy also submitted business documents establishing its legitimacy, which was not controverted by complainants,” it said. It also said there was no evidence that Concepcion acted with corrupt motives, personal interest, or deliberate intent to violate the law, adding that his participation was limited to approving and executing the contracts. Complainants also failed to identify any law, rule, or regulation imposing upon Jimenez a ministerial duty to rescind the contracts, according to the Ombudsman. He assumed office in February 2023, after the execution of the MLAs. “Absent such duty, his inaction cannot constitute manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross neglect, or misconduct,” it explained. In 2024, the UP Not For Sale Network protested the “commercialization” of the UP Diliman campus following the soft opening of DiliMall. The group claimed that the new commercial building was “anti-student” and negatively affected small, local businesses, as DiliMall had paved the way for private big businesses to enter the campus. In April, the UP System Administration said that the MLAs were “legally sound and in accordance with retail practices.” “In the redevelopment of the Diliman Shopping Center, affected stallholders were given priority, with preferential rental terms and opportunities to reestablish their livelihood,” it also said. – Rappler.com How does this make you feel? Loading