Bred-In-The-Bone “Epal” Style of Stumping Keeps Roxas Flailing out of the Water.

“Christmas in Lent: Roxas togive P4B for survivors” reads the Inquirer headline of an article by Marlon Ramos, a Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist. Something is egregiously wrong with this headline. It sounds as though Mar Roxas is giving away his own money out of his generosity. This is the same poor and inflammatory bred-in-the-bone “epal” style of stumping. It unwittingly or wittingly offends the taxpayers, who now more than ever feel pained by the brazen raid of public coffers, courtesy of PDAF and DAP.

And it does not stop there. Roxas, the disconnected politico that he is, waltzed with this anomaly as he handed over to the local officials of his home province, Capiz, 200 million in rehabilitation aid, saying: “Advance Happy Easter. May you spend your money wisely to help your [constituents].”  Really, this is how irresponsibly inept or helpless the government is in ensuring that taxpayers’ money, as this 200 million pesos, is spent as planned and approved?

He should have said anything to the effect that the Commission on Audit (COA) will be hot on their trail in seeing to it that those funds are spent as intended, otherwise the Ombudsman will be all over them, and will definitely file cases against those found responsible—clearly the thrust that the administration, at least, is projecting, so why not reinforce it.

While he later warned politicians against epal or credit-grabbing stunts, as embellishing projects with their names, he was up front doing it. That he further warned that Pnoy would be closely monitoring the use of funds, mattered less, because he overshadowed it with his shadowy remarks.

I don’t want to go as far as to say that this is intended or meant as coming from his gut, but his handlers have to manage these political miscues if they were to succeed in rebuilding his sullied political image.

Will JLN Bare it All or Will a Senate Contempt Reward Her?

As the Nation awaits the appearance of Janet Lim-Napoles (JLN), alleged mastermind of the 10-billion PDAF scam, before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on Nov. 7, 2013 presumably to testify on what she knows of the issue under investigation, speculations and analyses on whether she would bare all or whether she should be made a State Witness, thereby affording her immunity from prosecution, to cajole her into naming the lawmakers, executive officials, and private person she had conspired with and bribed, have swirled in the papers and online publications.

One senator opines that Janet Lim-Napoles should be made a State Witness citing the committee’s power and the fact that it had done so in the past, arguing that the country’s quest for truth about who among the government officials and private persons she colluded with in carrying out the elaborate scheme should justify letting her off the hook.

 Another says the fact that she is already under detention on a charge of the illegal detention of her erstwhile trusted operator, and cousin Benhur Luy emasculates the coercive nature of the Senate committee’s contempt power as there is no incentive in avoiding the same –you can’t compel her under threat of detention if she refuses when she is detained elsewhere anyway.

Yet another senator even provides more color by hunching that she may even deliberately court senate contempt by refusing to answer any question so that the committee would detain her in the chamber’s holding room, citing the air-conditioned room, better amenities, possible internet and pc use are enough lure to escape her less desirable detention in a Police’s Special Action Force camp in Sta. Rosa Laguna.

These could spark a debate and even protest among the readers, so let’s give each of the above a short discussion.

On the issue of making her a state witness, it is worth noting that not every one (of the accused) may be made a state witness. Even the courts, upon which the power to discharge is bestowed as an exercise of its jurisdiction, on proposal and initiation of the prosecutor, have to be satisfied with the requirements of the law.

So who can be a State Witness? Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides enlightenment, to wit:

 “Sec. 9. Discharge of accused to be state witness.

 When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as State Witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.”

Is there absolute necessity for JLN’s testimony? This is answered by the answer to question no 2. It would not be difficult for the judge, on whom such determination is charged, to give a negative answer to question number one owing to the positive answer in question number two, and obviates answering question number three.

Put another way, there is no necessity, much less ABSOLUTE necessity, because there are whistleblowers who have similar firsthand detailed accounts of JLN’s inner workings such that their testimonies are enough to sustain conviction of the accused, including JLN.

On question number four, even considering that the law does not require that the person sought to be discharged be the LEAST GUILTY, but simply not the most guilty, JLN hardly seem to be lesser guilty than the other co-accused, she having masterminded the scam based on testimonies of the whistleblowers. If at all, she could ONLY BE equally guilty as her co-accused.

Lastly, whether she had been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude, we have not heard the DOJ, the Court, or the Ombudsman making any pronouncement on the issue, but even on the first four requisites, JLN would not qualify as a State Witness.

Why others are floating the idea, no one really knows for sure what the real score is. Certainly, the public who has since been dumbfounded by the scale of the scam of which JLN et al. stand accused, would never sit idly if the ombudsman would eventually propose or resolve to discharge her as an accused in favor of her testifying for the State. Plainly, the tradeoff is unwarranted.

On another senator’s suggestion that the Senate contempt power and its consequent order of detention could hardly compel JLN because she is detained anyway already. Not true at all, let us remember that for time spent under preventive imprisonment she gets to earn the entire time or eighty percent thereof, as the case may be, as credit against her eventual sentence (Article 29, Revised Penal Code or RA 3815). The same is not true, though, if she were detained as a consequence of the senate committee citing her in contempt, for the latter is not deprivation of liberty in relation with the crime for which she is being presently detained (Serious Illegal Detention of Benhur Luy), and it is by order of another institution (the Senate), other than that issuing the commitment order (the courts).

On yet another senator’s banter that she might deliberately court Senate’s contempt preferring to be detained in the senate chamber apparently for its better condition, the Senate is not obliged to extend to its detainee the privilege to use and enjoy all its amenities. A detainee, certainly, and more importantly in this case one who is not a public official, or as the upper house would love to call it, a co-equal branch, does not annex to his/her rights the enjoyment of comforts available in a place of detention, which happens to be, this time, the Senate. After all, the Senate is not a correction facility, and the purpose of detention is correction, a penalty, not vacation or sort of reward.

Truth be told, there should be no pressure on the State to extend all sorts of accommodation to JLN. As things stand now, she is an accused, she must be treated like one.

 

At the Backdrop of GMA et al. Plunder Indictment, the Pork Scourge Stares Pnoy in the Face

It is amazing how former government officials of the Arroyo Administration are crying foul over plunder charges filed against them for their role in the release of approximately 23B of Malampaya funds (an accumulation of royalty for the government on oil and gas finds in the country), purportedly decreed by an EO issued by then President GMA to attend to the urgent needs of the victims of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. COA, however, finds in its report, and on which DOJ bases its case, that they went NOT to typhoon victims, but to pockets of lawmakers, Arroyo cronies, and executive officials as high up as former president herself Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA).

Ermita says he only carried out the orders of the then president GMA. Former Budget Secretary and now congressman Rolando Andaya echoes Ermita saying his job was simply ministerial. But is it really plausible that these heads of offices who wield so much power and clout with then president GMA would just carry out orders and release budget involving billions of pesos all in faithful compliance with the mandate of their office, and without consideration? I tell you that is a tough sell.

On whining why the former president GMA is being indicted. What is the fuss? Even the P10B PDAF scam, as narrated in statements sworn to separately by the whistleblowers, covered the period ten years back, which puts it right within the 3-term (9 years) GMA regime which ended in 2010. Janet Lim Napoles herself, the PDAF Scam mastermind, hinted in interviews prior to her surrender, that she was not the boss, and instead referred to her boss as little girl or small girl. They saw this coming, so the make-believe surprise play is not going to cut it.

It is not to say that I am without beef with the Pnoy administration. I wrote in a previous post how disappointed I was, so were many who until then fully supported him, at his insidious double talk regarding pork barrel. While he said it was finally time for the pork to vanish for good, he kept in his 2014 Budget some P450B in so-called Special Purpose Fund, which he could direct the disbursement of as he would please.

Again, these attempts, never mind the subtlety with which they tried to portray innocence, are what infuriate the Filipino people, inasmuch as they NOT only betray the president’s one-upping them, but more than that, they insult them. How dare the president and his, what appears now to be, not-so-bright boys think that the Filipino people are too dumb to tell pork when it goes by another name?

Then came the DAP debacle, which the flailing Jinggoy brought to fore, coloring it as bribe to Senators for Voting to convict then Chief Justice Corona in his impeachment, even as he later clarified it was not bribe, but incentive. It did not help that they all chorused in defense of said DAP, arguing that there was legal basis for it, for there simply was none. It was patently illegal.

It is these miscalculations that would put the president at a collision course with his bosses, who are now ready to flex their muscles. I am sure right now the president is seeing enough that could provide the impetus to his untimely and drastic ouster, if he is not careful.

If the president wants to preclude a whopping precipitation of events, he must give up some heads. The people are shouting for the blood of whoever architected DAP. Right now, it’s ABAD’s head that towers the rest. Before the situation spins out of control, Pnoy must ask Abad to bow out of office.

Sure, he must have considered Abad’s genius as responsible for most of his administrations praise-drawing initiatives, but the situation demands that he go, if the president is to keep his head above water.

The Pigs are throwing Tantrums Demanding for their Swill Back; The Pigsty Seems to Agree

The Palace, through the Solicitor-General, joining the House of Representatives, in its 23-page comment, has asked the Supreme Court  to junk petitions calling for the declaration of pork barrel funds unconstitutional. Now we’re seeing that even Pnoy is no impervious to the evil lure of money.

Just weeks after announcing he was scrapping the pork barrel system –responding to mounting calls from the public for its abolition– the president seems to have had a sudden change of heart, now seeming to have succumbed to the irresistible beckoning of tens of billions of pesos that would slip out of his control and those of his cohorts if he made good on his words.

Sadly, in the eyes of the public, the President, once thought to be different and of unswayable moral compass, has shed his skin and revealed his familiar porky hide. The duplicity!  Again, the argument that the TRO on pork barrel would work to the damage of the students and sickly is lame, and a hokey ploy as explained in yesterday’s post.

The trouble is, the Palace and Congress don’t get it and continue to underestimate the outrage that the public continue to harbor over the subject. If the Palace pushes ahead with its posturing, I would not be surprised if the People graduate from demanding abolishing the pork barrel to abolishing the Pnoy administration.

Miscalculations at this point would have catastrophic consequences for the administration. It’s like toying with matches next to a powder keg.

 

Lawmakers to SC: "Free Up Pork Barrel Funds for the Students and the Sick." Nice try, but No Can Do

Even as the outrage over pork barrel funds scam continues to linger, if not intensify, lawmakers are already itching to feel out public sentiment by floating their intention to petition the Supreme Court to Free up a portion of TRO’d funds allegedly for Student’s tuition and medical assistance to the elderly/sickly. As though they have done good, they’re now cunningly attempting to impress upon the public that they are concerned for these citizens who have been dependent on their PDAF for support.

Goodness, the portion they’re claiming to go to these allegedly worthy ends, to begin with, is scant in proportion to the whole, and you know where the rest goes. It is like a dressing over the funds to give them a semblance of legitimate use. And if they think the public buys the idea that they are doing these as concerned leaders to their constituents, they are underestimating the public’s intelligence.

It is common knowledge that they do these as schemes of maintaining their army of voters. It is like payola. And they have been paralyzing these people by acculturating in them dependency, beggary, and mendicancy. No wonder why many among so-called beneficiaries who used to go out and make a living braving their chances in a competitive small-scale market –street peddling, pedicab-driving, etc– have stopped waking up early for their industry, instead go into long slumber of the day like fatteners being grown for slaughter.

These people have unwittingly lost their real-life survival skills. Thanks to the politics of patronage employed on them by their politician-sponsors. We are no socialist country. People have to earn the food they intend to put on the table.

If the state is to provide them anything, it should be by means of training in fields that respond to the needs of today’s multitude of enterprise in order to be employed and be a productive member of society.

For certain, before they have been conditioned to be, and molded into the, dependents that they have become now, they used to be proud workers who did not shirk on their responsibility to provide for their family. They were stoic who did not complain work was so difficult for the little amount that they earned. They understood the workings of life: If you invest in your future, it will be brighter.

Aptly, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and you feed for a lifetime.”

If they are genuinely concerned about the welfare of their beneficiaries, they may continue to provide for them, but not from the public funds that public clamor has saved, and the Court has ordered withheld. They can take them out of the bulk of pork barrel funds that they have amassed over the years that are still with them. I know they must be thinking “But they are in properties now.”

Well, sell them, and you might, just might, save your soul in the end!”

 

 

How Calloused Public Officials Have Become

Now, it is coming to light that all these Malampaya Funds worth over P23B were spirited from public coffer in the chaos that ensued from natural calamities wrought by Typhoons Ondoy, and Pepeng.

The thieves, consisting of an elaborate net of conspirators, exploited the tragedies, and hid behind ardent public sympathies for the victims. Little did the public know that it was only a pretext to far more insidious and sinister motives of plunder.

That bulk of the funds were ordered released by former President GMA during the height of spending binge for the 2010 elections is of no surprise. She had three terms, and this had been a familiar pattern, but this was the grandest of all in terms of its sheer scale.  This only confirms what many already had in mind, but without proof.

Now all hands, though first to be hauled out are those from the opposition, seem to have soiled and sullied by stolen public funds.

There’s really no way of euphemizing this, the public officials stole taxpayers’ funds, and should be tried and punished if and when proven guilty.

It will be difficult, as the thieves, seasoned as they are, have prepared and continuously conducted clearing operations as the crime happened. They did away with any trail. If it was inevitable, they ordered their staff to act for them. If it is yet imperative that they do the signing themselves, I am sure they deliberately signed differently, so they could claim forgery in the end. Everything else, that remained they had sweepers to make sure they were destroyed.

Except the tucked memories of experiences  and personal records of events of Benhur Luy, and the rest of the whistleblowers, and Janet Napoles herself, if she finally decides to do the right thing to save whatever is left of her muddy dark soul, and bare all out.

It will be a long and risk-riddled trial. Each day, the lives of the whistleblowers, including that of accused Napoles, hang in the balance. One shot can change the course of the case. A few hitting their marks could be a game changer.

 

 

AMLC Strangely Out of the Pork Barrel Picture

Amidst testimonies by Benhur Luy and his fellow witnesses that they had been depositing and withdrawing from bank accounts of their erstwhile boss, Pork Barrel queen Janet Napoles, large sums of money to the tune of tens of millions of pesos, I wonder why the Anti-Money Laundering Counsel (AMLC), tasked to implement the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001 or RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194, is not being summoned to shed light on what actions, if any, it took concerning the supposed reports, if any, the banks involved submitted to it (AMLC) regarding said deposits.

For sure, the deposits constituted “covered transactionS” under its definition in the law considering the amounts (total of over 500k deposits in a day). They could even be classified as “suspicious transactions,” considering that it is patently abnormal and suspicious for a legitimate business person to be withdrawing in cold cash large sums that would necessitate inconveniently bagging and hauling them.

Banks and other covered institutions enumerated under the law are required to “know their customers.” I wonder how Napoles introduced or represented herself to the banks when she opened her account and throughout her relationship with them in order to override the suspicion (large deposits) triggered by the law (or justify her transactions):

·         there is no underlying legal/trade obligation, purpose or economic justification;

·         the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client.

It should not have been enough that she said she was a contractor dealing with the government. In fact, that should have heightened the suspicion and set into motion a thorough investigation, unless those whose duty it was to so do were conspirators or accomplices to these predicate crimes of graft and corruption, and/or plunder.

Legitimate business transactions nowadays are sealed and payments of consideration therefor made through writing checks, wiring direct to accounts, letters of credit, telegraphic transfers, and so forth. When you withdraw cash purportedly to settle business transactions, it’s not only red flag or alarm going off, it is on its face screaming and stinking anomaly that should have triggered covert and extensive investigation.

If banks did not make a report for covered and suspicious transaction to BSP and AMLC, then banks must made to explain why no such actions were taken, and if found remiss, must be meted punishment as provided for under the law.

If banks did what it was incumbent upon them, but AMLC failed to conduct the necessary investigation, then it must be similarly subjected to the process and accountability as the banks, and more, for this time it involves government officials, and if proven that they purposely turned a blind eye, or colluded with the perpetrators.  

It is strange that the Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating Council (IAAGCC) -quite a mouthful for an ad hoc committee- has been eerily silent on AMLC’s role in their investigation. But I hope that in the coming days it will start to break down its role in detecting these anomalies if only it acted by its mandate.

Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Function Accorded the Public Officials, (Elective or Appointive) Proves Anachronous Now and Must be Stricken Out.

For decades, this presumption has already proved to have outlived its application. Since we were plundered, and thrown into darkness for decades by the Marcos regime, where official abuses were rampant and committed openly with impunity, this presumption should have been overthrown by the judiciary.

While it may be argued that such is necessary for government efficiency, and to obviate the burden for public officials of having to substantiate the nature by which they performed their duty, experience had taught us that the entitled (public officials) have taken shield behind the presumption to commit corruption, exact oppression, and generally perpetrate injustice upon the public they ought to serve, more than the public has shown any penchant for harassing them with suits/complaint, against which the presumption could have come handy .

Seriously, ask yourself now: Do you honestly believe, as it stands now, that it promotes government efficiency? or as it looks now, has it been exploited by those it sought to protect? The intention is laudable, but the beneficiaries do not have the moral rectitude to wield it.

How would you react if public officials involved in the pork barrel scam claimed innocence to any wrongdoing invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official function?

Wouldn’t you be gnashing your teeth in anger?

While the presumption disputable, it is an insult to the public that it is even afforded them in the face of their shameless and callous propensity for pillaging public coffers, while the rest of us, mockingly called the “bosses,” break our backs working just to get by.

Public officials should stand in the same footing as any Juan. If the presumption is any good, they must earn their entitlement to it.