Who got the facts wrong?

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110415-331381/Who-got-the-facts-wrong By Solita Collas-Monsod Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 22:28:00 04/15/2011

ESTELITO MENDOZA and Associates (EMA), lawyers of Lucio Tan (and also Danding Cojuangco, according to the latest reports on the San Miguel case), paid for another full-page ad in this newspaper (April 2) in reaction to my column of March 26. According to them, I gave "unwarranted meaning" to their reproducing the July 20, 2009 Sandiganbayan resolution denying the motion of the Presidential Commission on Good Government and Office of the Solicitor General for reconsideration of its order on April 23,2009 terminating the presentation of testimonial evidence by the prosecution.

Excuse me. I gave "unwarranted meaning" to the July 20, 2009 resolution? Well, who reproduced the whole thing in the first place, paying for one full-page ad in order to do so? They must have thought the document was significant, unless they can afford to waste money. And then when I react to it, they consider that I am giving "unwarranted meaning" to it? If they didn’t want anybody to take a close look at it, then why reproduce it at all?

So now they reproduce the transcript of the April 23, 2009 Sandiganbayan hearing so that "the readers of Ms Solita Collas-Monsod may have the FACTS right…" Does that mean that the first full-paid ad didn’t have the facts right? If so, that would be fine with me, because my column precisely commented that the Sandiganbayan was selective in its choice of time frame, particularly since the EMA ad complained that the case has been pending for almost 24 years. And if EMA thinks that it was I who didn’t have the facts right, wouldn’t it have been better to point out exactly where I got my facts wrong?

Because, difficult as it was (I had to use a magnifying glass), I did read the ad, which was described by EMA as "a copy of the relevant portions of the Transcript … of the hearing of April 23, 2009 … when it issued the Order in open court." Only to find out that almost half of the "relevant portions" was devoted to what Mendoza said during the hearing (sneaky, sneaky).

Moreover, it must be noted that the Sandiganbayan had nothing to say about-nor did it even ask the defendants to respond to-Solicitor Mauricia Dinopol’s argument (quoting her boss) that "although the complaint was filed some time in 1987, the defendants were also at fault in the delay of the case, Your Honor, because they filed several delaying pleadings also, Your Honor, so that the last pre-trial brief was filed some time in 2005. By that time, the evidence that we would have already presented in 1988 and 1989 were already not available readily, Your Honor, to the government."

Ignoring such relevant (in the real sense of the word) facts-by starting the time frame from 2005 instead of 1987-will not make them go away.

It turns out, by the way, dear readers, that this is not the first time the defense tried to get the Sandiganbayan to terminate the prosecution’s presentation of testimonial evidence. Would you believe that in late 2007, barely two years into the trial proper, the defendants (read EMA) filed a motion to order the government to conclude the presentation of its evidence? The reason given: the case had been pending for over 20 years and its pendency had inflicted irreparable damages to the defendants. They delay the trial for 18 years, and then get impatient after two years. Chutzpah.

The opposition to such a ludicrous motion, as drafted by Catalino Generillo (who was then relieved from his PCGG job at the request of EMA) is instructive. He compared it with the plunder case against Joseph Estrada (and seven other named defendants plus John and Jane Does) which involved less than P10 billion, and which took 19 months for the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. In contrast, Civil Case 005 is against 28 individuals and 40 corporations, involving at least P200 billion. Generillo also pointed out that the motion was filed after the testimonies of former PCGG Chairman Jovito Salonga, then Malacañang Museum Director Jeremy Barns and then Rep. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the latter two with documentary and testimonial evidence.

And then, lo and behold, this second move to terminate the evidence of the prosecution, which came at just about the time Mariano Tanenglian, Lucio Tan’s brother, wanted to (he apparently still wants to) testify as a prosecution witness. Coincidence? My sainted foot. More like a pattern-to which the Sandiganbayan seems to be blind.

But all of the above seems to have been rendered moot and academic, because Generillo says (citing Attorney Pabulayan, clerk of court of the Sandiganbayan’s 5th Division) that the written order of the court granting the government’s motion to adduce additional evidence was released last Wednesday. Per that order, the motion was granted "without objection from the defendants and in the furtherance of justice."

At this point, I will not look this gift horse in the mouth.

* * *

Erratum: In last week’s column, I stated, based on an informant’s statement (an insider), that Grace Tan Pulido resigned from the Department of Finance when Cesar Purisima came in (during the Arroyo administration). Pulido has assured me that she resigned way before Purisima became finance secretary, and that in fact it was Purisima who batted strongly for her appointment as chair of the Commission on Audit. My apologies to readers for giving them the wrong information, and to Cesar Purisima for the slur on his character. But I suggest that he treat his subordinates with greater respect.

Could PNoy end Lucio Tan’s and ilk’s corrupt practices?

By Frank Wenceslao
Lucio Tan

Readers of my "PINOY WEEKLY" column and its online version on GlobalBalita.com convey a growing impatience that President Aquino’s war on graft and corruption is caught in an old cliché that the more he announces changes, the more things remain the same.

There’s also a growing feeling that members of the administration are afraid to innovate. For instance, a Cabinet member with only educational attainment to rely on and no administrative experience easily succumbs to the status quo to become highly dependent on career bureaucrats. The fear to innovate stems largely from fear of the media not to get credit for success or all the blame if they fail more so when media practitioners slant reporting whichever way favor their political or pecuniary interest.

The President should get out of the confines of his advisers whether they’re relatives, former classmates or close friends. Sad to say, his options for policy-making and solutions to problems are too tilted towards legal perspectives. Secretary Paquito Ochoa reportedly guards access to the President zealously when his experience is limited to legal practice and as former QC Hall administrative officer that his legal perspective dominates Malacañang thinking even with regards to purely economic and financial matters.

Sufficient resources should be devoted to fight the war on G&C with reforms and better experienced staffing from top to bottom not afraid to innovate with the latest international anticorruption strategies and tools, not by creating a new agency. Presidential advisers especially lawyers are apparently convinced fighting the war in the corrupt Philippine justice system, who ignore the UNCAC and other anticorruption international agreements.

My colleagues and I can’t understand, for instance, why after six months there’ve been no changes in the administration’s anti-G&C efforts as though GMA’s policies continue. No agency under the DOJ such as PCGG or NBI; the DOF such as BIR or BOC; the Bangko Sentral such as the Anti-Money Laundering Council, nor individual initiative has drawn on the anticorruption studies, research and experience of the Philippine Anticorruption Movement USA, Inc. (Pamusa). Nobody has tested if Pamusa can really work with, submit G&C evidence to the FBI and draw support of the USDOJ and other federal agencies to search and recover the stolen assets from the Filipino people hidden in the U.S. Pamusa has also been waiting for said agencies to utilize it in asking U.S. federal agencies or their foreign counterparts, for instance, in China required by the UNCAC’ international cooperation provisions (UNCAC-ICP), particularly these excerpts, to wit:

"Countries agreed to cooperate with one another in every aspect of the fight against corruption, including prevention, investigation, and the prosecution of offenders. Countries are bound by the Convention to render specific forms of mutual legal assistance in gathering and transferring evidence for use in court, to extradite offenders. Countries are also required to undertake measures which will support the tracing, freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of corruption."

For starters, Pamusa can sue Lucio Tan for corrupt practices in the U.S. according to our volunteer counsels. Lucio could be indicted for corporate and accounting scandals which could end the web of corruption he has woven around himself. We have evidence against Lucio to be like several CEOs of U.S. conglomerates such as Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, TYCO, etc. sentenced to jail for corporate crimes, or pay millions of dollars of fines like foreign companies, e.g. Deutsch Bank, Siemens AG, Union Bank of Switzerland, Daimler AG (maker of Mercedes Benz), etc. to stop U.S. criminal investigation and possible prosecution of top officers.

Pamusa’s volunteer lawyers agree Lucio is now in a ditch. The PCGG can charge him through Pamusa in the U.S. and/or China of corrupt practices emerging out of the application for the proposed Allied Bank-PNB merger in the U.S. Lucio’s counsel probably overlooked that the application would lead U.S. banking regulators to look deeper into the two banks’ ownership before approval is granted. One condition is for Allied to divest of controlling equity in a small San Francisco bank, Oceanic Bank.

After waiting for several months the buyer John K.C. Ng, father-in-law of Lucio’s son, Michael, withdrew his offer. Although he gave a different reason, Ng presumably withdrew not wanting to be embroiled in Allied using Oceanic to launder money earned by the Marcos’ companies Lucio usurped but claimed by PCGG now pending in the Sandiganbayan.

Lucio as Allied chairman, among his other management positions such as in PAL, could probably be indicted for at least four (4) serious U.S. crimes, namely: money laundering abovementioned; racketeering for investing illegal funds of Marcos-owned or controlled corporations; foreign corrupt practices for investing illegal funds of the same Marcos-owned or controlled corporations and, of course, conspiracy with others to violate U.S. laws.

Pamusa’s volunteer counsels believe that to really nail Lucio the administration shouldn’t spare efforts for the SC to allow Lucio’s brother, Mariano Tanenglian, to testify and confirm Marcos’ ownership of the companies claimed by the PCGG. And when Lucio falls, others would follow such as Imelda Marcos, her children and brother, Kokoy Romualdez whose $101 million personal net worth in 2010 according to Forbes Magazine could’ve come only from Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth allegedly shared with GMA for her protection against PCGG seizure. As another consequnce, PCGG would enhance its claim to recover Marcos’ equities in companies he showered with government favors now "owned" by Henry Sy, John Gokongwei, Emilio Yap (who usurped Manila Bulletin), etc.

Moreoevr, I can say without fear of contradiction that Pamusa can recover the single-unit apartment of 2-bathroom at New York’s Trump Tower costing over $3.3 million acquired by Gen. Carlos Garcia allegedly for Gen. Angelo Reyes. Pamusa can seek the help of the USDOJ, Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and FBI to sue Gen. and Mrs. Garcia, their children and the Trump Tower to recover for the Philippine Government the apartment, the $100,000.00 in cash smuggled by Garcia’s children into the U.S., and their other illicit assets in America.

Is Philippine Airlines for sale? ... Succession issues

Is Philippine Airlines for sale?

By Lala Rimando, abs-cbnNEWS.com

Posted at 01/13/2011 9:05 PM | Updated as of 01/17/2011 9:48 PM

MANILA, Philippines - There are ongoing talks between the management of local carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL) and potential investors.

This was confirmed on Jan. 13 by PAL Holdings, the listed firm that owns 85% of PAL.

However, these talks are purely "exploratory," stressed PAL Holdings in a disclosure to the stock exchange.

"Upon inquiry from the President of Philippine Airlines, Mr. Jaime Bautista, the latter neither confirmed nor denied any serious discussion with Mr. Ramon Ang on the purchase of 40% of Philippine Airlines, saying that any alleged talk with any party are all exploratory in nature," PAL Holdings' corporate secretary Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco wrote in the disclosure.

The listed firm issued the disclosure after a columnist of The Philippine Star wrote that Ang, president of conglomerate San Miguel Corp, is PAL's "knight in shining armor" who is "dead set in getting into the airline business."

The same online piece added that PAL chairman taipan Lucio C. Tan has allegedly "decided to unload a substantial number of shares from the country's flag carrier with the right buyer and divest his holdings at a premium price."

Speculation has been rife that the 70-year-old airline is on the selling block after it encountered massive losses of US$312-million from 2008 to 2010 largely due to previous spikes in fuel prices, which account for bulk of its operating expenses.

Succession issues

Talk has also been rife that the health of Tan has been deteriorating. This has raised issues about succession.

Tan, who has several heirs and has had disputes with his most trusted brother and business partner, was considered to have cashed in on Fortune Tobacco, the undisputable leader in country's cigarette market for decades.

In February, Fortune inked a joint venture agreement with multinational cigarette maker Philip Morris for an undisclosed amount.

Besides PAL and Fortune Tobacco, Tan also owns considerable stakes in beermaker Asia Brewery, commercial banks Philippine National Bank and Allied Bank, among others.

Tan is the second richest in the country, next to mall magnate Henry Sy, and one of the three Filipinos whose wealth has breached the billion-dollar mark, based on estimates of Forbes.

His wealth stands at $1.2 billion in July 2010, according to Forbes. A big chunk of his fortune comes from Hong Kong-based Eton Properties, which has been pursuing affordable residential and sprawling township projects in the Philippines.

Interestingly, his son and namesake, Lucio Tan Jr., has been trying to move away from the shadows of the 77-year-old patriarch.

Tan Jr. has bought into MRC Allied, an inactive mining stock listed in the local stock exchange. MRC Allied has been tapping the capital markets -- instead of his dad's billions -- to raise funds for prospective projects in mining and power.