http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/05/09/1321034/ombudsman-clears-gma-fertilizer-scam
MANILA, Philippines - Citing absence of proof, the Office of the Ombudsman has cleared former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of involvement in the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
In an eight-page decision signed on May 2 by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, the anti-graft agency junked the corruption case filed against the former president.
The fertilizer fund was allegedly distributed for election purposes to Arroyo allies, including lawmakers representing districts with no farms or agricultural activities.
The Office of the Ombudsman said there is no evidence to show that Arroyo had a hand in the anomaly for which former agriculture secretary Luis “Cito” Lorenzo and former undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante were charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan in June 2011.
A Malacañang official said the administration respects the court ruling that dismissed the charges against Arroyo.
“We note the May 8, 2014 resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the graft complaint against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. We respect the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, an independent constitutional body, which has the authority to decide on such cases filed before it,” Presidential Communications Operations Office Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said.
According to the members of the special panel on Task Force Abono cases composed of Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer 1 Karla Maria Barrios, Director Lalaine Benitez, and Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera: “In this case, without proof that respondent actually authorized the acts complained of, she cannot be held liable for the illegal acts of her subordinates.”
Lorenzo and Bolante were accused of misappropriating or misusing government funds by allegedly giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to parties for the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Project (FIFIP) under the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA).
Arroyo was also charged for allegedly not doing anything to rectify or discipline the two officials amid accusations that the money was actually used for politics or elections since a majority of the recipients of the funding were lawmakers allied with the then ruling Lakas-CMD party and others should have been disqualified from receiving funds because they do not represent farm zones.
After looking into the accusation, the Office of the Ombudsman said no documentary or testimonial evidence was submitted to prove that Arroyo had knowledge of or participation in the disbursement of the money.
“Complainant failed to present any documentary or testimonial evidence proving respondent’s alleged knowledge of, or participation in, the scheme perpetrated by Lorenzo and Bolante,” said the special panel, referring to the late former solicitor general Frank Chavez as complainant.
“All of the documents submitted by complainant were prepared and signed by other persons, and not by respondent. Not one of them may be traced back to her. Thus, no reasonable conclusion may be made that she, directly or indirectly, took part in the alleged irregularities that attended the entire process in the release of the fund,” their decision explained.
“All in all, complainant’s allegations of respondent’s criminal liability for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 lack any factual or legal basis. This Office has no other recourse but to dismiss the case,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.
The special panel ruled that there was no evidence to show that Arroyo had a hand in identifying the members of the Lakas-CMD party who would be recipients of the fund, including those supposed to be disqualified to receive it, because each of them submitted their justification to receive the fund and the money was coursed through district offices of the Department of Agriculture for implementation.
Graft probers also found that the former president could not be held liable under the doctrine of command responsibility because such doctrine only holds for a public officer administratively liable for neglect of duty if he or she had knowledge of the offense and did not take any preventive or corrective action.
The ombudsman said Arroyo could not be said to have done nothing to discipline or rectify the irregularities because documents would show that she ordered the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) to investigate the same but it had to terminate the proceedings when the ombudsman commenced its own investigation “in deference” to that office.
“Complainants’ allegation that respondent failed to comply with her duty to review the policies and programs in the AFMA is baseless. Annexes 1 to 21 of respondent’s counter-affidavit proved that such a review was complied with. In any case, such accusation is also irrelevant, complainant having failed to establish its connection to the irregularities committed in the disbursement of the fertilizer fund,” the special panel stressed.
PCSO plunder case
In another case, the Sandiganbayan has directed ombudsman lawyers to comment anew on Arroyo’s motion for reconsideration on the denial of her petition for bail.
Lawyer Modesto Ticman Jr., one of the former president’s lawyers handling the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) plunder case against her, said the anti-graft court moved the hearing on the motion to May 16.
“The prosecution was asked to file a comment until May 15,” he told The STAR yesterday, citing an order of the anti-graft court’s First Division.
Arroyo on Monday asked the Sandiganbayan again to reconsider its decision to deny her bail as she has no intention whatsoever to flee.
In a nine-page motion for reconsideration, her other defense lawyers led by Jose Flaminiano and Laurence Hector Arroyo insisted that their client should enjoy temporary liberty while undergoing trial for plunder because she is not a flight risk.
Arroyo’s legal counsels invoked anew the Supreme Court case of Montano vs. Ocampo where the accused, despite findings of strong evidence of guilt, was granted bail because there is no reason to believe that he was going to escape.
“In other words, if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the theory that proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than face the verdict of the jury,” the Supreme Court said.
The former president’s lawyers, based on the Supreme Court decision, said the high tribunal considered not the weight of evidence but the separate factor of the defendant’s official and social standing and other personal circumstances.
“If President Arroyo is not a flight risk, then there is no reason to detain her pending trial,” lawyers Flaminiano and Arroyo said, noting that ombudsman prosecutors are not even arguing that the former president is a flight risk.
Defense counsels are again asking the court for bail citing the former president’s age of 67, her medical condition and her detention at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) since October 2012 despite her constitutional right to presumption of innocence.
Arroyo filed the motion less than a week after the Sandiganbayan warned ombudsman prosecutors against further postponements and delays that will be used as a ground to grant bail to the former president.
Mike Arroyo’s travel
The Sandiganbayan has granted the request of Arroyo’s husband Jose Miguel to be allowed to travel to the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe, including France and Italy, from May 17 to June 8.
Mr. Arroyo will watch his granddaughters Mikaela, 11, and Monique, 9, compete in a Junior Golf tournament in Scotland next week.
The former first gentleman, who is facing trial for graft for alleged involvement in the national broadband network (NBN) deal anomaly, was allowed to leave the country under the same conditions which include posting a travel bond and reporting to the Sandiganbayan upon his return.
Written by Bizchum
We are Creative Blogger Theme Wavers which provides user friendly, effective and easy to use themes. Each support has free and providing HD support screen casting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment