Immunity ruled out for Lucio Tan’s brother
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091019-230919/Immunity-ruled-out-for-Lucio-Tans-brother
By Tetch TorresINQUIRER.net
Posted date: October 19, 2009
MANILA, Philippines—Government lawyers maintained that the brother of Lucio Tan must not be given immunity from suit in exchange for testifying on the pending ill-gotten wealth cases against the business tycoon.
In a nine-page comment filed with the anti-graft court's Fifth Division, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), through Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, said it has sole discretion on whether to grant Mariano Tanenglian's plea for "immunity" in exchange for testifying in the cases.
"In reviewing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in these areas, the jurisdiction of the court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impartial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute," Devanadera said.
"Accordingly, the PCGG cannot be compelled to grant immunity to defendant. The Court has limited authority to review the exercise of said power and prerogative," she added.
The Solicitor General told the anti-graft court that it informed the anti-graft court that Tanenglian’s “immunity proposal” was carefully assessed and evaluated, and it found it “grossly disadvantageous to the government.”
"The exercise of the power is not shared with any other authority. Nor is its exercise subject to the approval or disapproval of another agency of government," said Devanadera, who is also concurrent Justice Secretary who has administrative supervision over PCGG.
Devanadera rejected Tanenglian’s application for immunity by pointing that he has “obscure motives” considering that he came out after more than 20 years.
Tanenglian proposes that PCGG grant him and his immediate family both civil and criminal immunity.
He also wants to be dropped as a defendant in a civil case being pursued by the government and that all writs of sequestration, particularly his shares of stocks in the Lucio Tan Group of Companies, be lifted.
In rejecting Tanenglian’s application for both criminal and civil immunity, Devanadera cited precedent cases by the Supreme Court in the past, which “took special occasions to pronounce that immunity can be extended only to witnesses who provide information to testify against a respondent, defendant or accused in an ill-gotten wealth case.”
In the case of Tanenglian, she noted that “Tanenglian was even a Treasurer in some of the corporations” and is “named principal defendants who… actively collaborated with the Marcoses in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.”
In 1987, the PCGG filed a forfeiture case against Lucio Tan and several of his companies, including Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery, Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings, Dominium Realty, Construction Corp. and Shareholdings Inc. The case has dragged on for more than 20 years.
The prosecution alleged that Ferdinand Marcos had 60% beneficial ownership in said companies, which beneficial interests were held in trust by Tan personally and through his family members and business associates who appeared as the recorded stockholders of said companies.
PCGG asks antigraft court to reject Tanenglian’s plea for immunity
Nation
Written by Joel San Juan / Reporter
MONDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2009 22:10
THE Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has officially asked the Sandiganbayan to reject the bid of businessman Mariano Tanenglian, brother of tycoon Lucio Tan, to give him immunity from suit in exchange for testifying for the government in connection with the ill-gotten wealth cases against his brother and several others.
In a nine-page comment submitted to the antigraft court, the PCGG through the Solicitor General insisted that it is the commission’s sole prerogative to decide on whether to accept Tanenglian as witness and to provide him immunity from suit.
The PCGG cited the SC ruling in Mapa v Sandiganbayan which held that Section 5 of Executive Order 14 conferred upon the PCGG the power to grant immunity alone and on its own authority.
“Accordingly, the PCGG cannot be compelled to grant immunity to defendant-movant…the Honorable Court has limited authority to review the exercise of said power and prerogative. This is buttressed by no less than defendant-movant Tanenglian’s statement that the grant of immunity is the sole prerogative of the PCGG in consultation with the Solicitor General,” the PCGG said.
The PCGG stressed that the government decided to turn down the immunity proposal after careful assessment and evaluation of the case, where it was found to be “grossly disadvantageous” to the government.
Earlier, the solicitor general recommended to the PCGG the rejection of Tanenglian’s plea for immunity as it questioned the latter’s motives in offering himself as a state witness against his brother.
Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera pointed out that Tanenglian’s testimony would not in anyway help the government in prosecuting the ill-gotten wealth cases against Tan since it took him more than 20 years before making the offer.
In the draft of the “Immunity Agreement proposal,” Tanenglian vowed to cooperate with the government by providing information relevant to the ill-gotten wealth cases; by making admission in a pleading or submission of the existence, authenticity or due execution of documents or exhibits submitted by the republic; by executing an affidavit which contains the said information or admissions; and by making himself available as witness for the republic, if requested by the republic.
In exchange, Tanenglian proposed that PCGG grant him and his immediate family both civil and criminal immunity.
Tanenglian also wants to be dropped as a defendant in a civil case being pursued by the government and that all writs of sequestration, particularly his shares of stocks in the Lucio Tan Group of Companies, be lifted.
Aside from the ill-gotten wealth case, Tanenglian is facing child abuse and maltreatment cases filed by his former house maids. His wife and children are facing the same charges.
Wednesday
We Love Lucio
http://www.pcij.org/imag/Media/luciomedia2.html
IT’S NOT AS if Tan were a welcome bovine in many a media company’s pastures, and in truth ABS-CBN and the Star are not the only ones to feel his presence. As some insiders tell it though, there simply was no stopping him when he came lumbering confidently through the corporate gates, often with a considerable number of company shares on his back. At least that’s how it was with ABS-CBN, which found Tan in possession of 20 million shares of the publicly listed Lopez-owned radio and television network. Tan had bought the shares in 1996 through his Allied Banking Corporation. Having them means Tan now owns three percent of the country’s largest broadcast company, bringing him close to a board seat beside mall magnate and fellow taipan Henry Sy.
The difference, says an ABS-CBN source, is that Sy was invited to join the ABS-CBN board while Tan was not. The SM owner has a cinema business thought beneficial to ABS-CBN’s movie production outfit Star Cinema. Tan, in contrast, had no deal to offer the Lopezes. Even worse, says the source, he was feared to tarnish the network’s good standing with his reputation as a tax evader.
The case of the Star, the third most widely circulated broadsheet in the country, is rather different. When its late publisher Betty Go-Belmonte was trying to get the paper off the ground in the 1980s, Tan is said to have generously lent her part of the cash she needed. “I owed him money,” Monsod recalls Belmonte telling her once, “but I paid him back.”
According to Monsod, Belmonte had also assured her of complete independence in writing her columns, “but when she died, things changed.” Monsod apparently finds some connection between the way she was treated and the fact that Star publisher Max Soliven also happens to be publisher and chairman of the board of Eastgate publishing, the group that produces PAL’s inflight magazine Mabuhay. That, harrumphs Monsod, is a clear case of conflict of interest.
Tan reportedly owns shares in the paper through a trustee. He is also believed to be part-owner of the Philippine Post, a new broadsheet said to have been funded by Finance Secretary and known Tan fan Edgardo Espiritu. But the newspaper that he has long been rumored to have more than a minority interest in is Today, the slick daily run by lawyer and television host Teddy Locsin Jr. Rumors regarding the alleged real owners of the paper began circulating as early as Today’s start-up stage, when a Tan-owned company was revealed to be its major supplier of state-of-the-art computers.
Such ownership talks have persisted to this day, although until recently they were confined in media circles. At the peak of the flak over PAL, however, the matter resurfaced in Today’s own op-ed section. “As far as I know,” labor leader Popoy Lagman, then supporting the PAL unions, wrote in a letter to the editor, “the P30 million he (Teddyboy) received from Tan was gratis. Hence, he has no obligation to become Tan’s slave.” Locsin countered with the charge that Lagman was secretly playing both sides and that Tan had given the former rebel P20 million and a car to persuade the PAL employees to end the strike. Interestingly enough, the sharp-tongued Locsin neglected to deny the insinuation that Tan’s money had helped start Today.
But perhaps only Lucio Tan himself knows for sure which media outfits he has money in. The personnel of one of the country’s top five AM radio stations say they had no inkling Tan had some business interest in their station until they began hitting the magnate during the PAL fiasco. Somehow, the station owners were reminded that Tan had bailed them out during a financial crisis in the 1980s, and that he was therefore a business partner—a very silent one, but a partner nonetheless. The result, says one station insider, is that management simply refused to air any Tan or PAL-related news in the week the controversy was raging.
Another radio station that can be called Tan-friendly is DWWW. The station was originally owned by the family of veteran newscaster Tina Monzon-Palma, but acquired by Bacsal a few years ago. Bacsal, who says he is “connected” with Fortune Tobacco but declines to be more specific, insists Tan has no interest in the venture.
To Lucio Tan’s close friends and associates, most of his investments in media, admitted or not, are mere manifestations of the taipan’s generosity. “Alam mo kasi nung araw, maraming taong nangangailangan ng pera, uutang sa kanya, pag hindi nabayaran, equity na lang (You know in the old days, a lot of people who needed money would approach Lucio Tan for loans. When they couldn’t pay him back, he just writes off the debts as equity)!” says retired Gen. Salvador Mison, president of Basic Holdings Corporation, which manages several Tan companies.
As his friends see it, it is hardly Tan’s fault that his being big-hearted has earned him an equally generous share of defenders in the media. Jake Macasaet, publisher of Ang Pahayagang Malaya, told a U.S. journalist during an interview three years ago, “I maintain that he (Lucio Tan) is a persecuted businessman.”
But Tan’s associates and friends may be downplaying the effects of his presence, financial and otherwise, in media outfits. Says a public relations practitioner who deals with newspaper reporters and editors: “I have to tread my way carefully through every paper other than BusinessWorld because Lucio Tan has a person protecting his interests in most every paper, except perhaps BusinessWorld.”
If the PR practitioner is correct, then that may explain why most newspapers had refused to air anti-Tan stories when the airline was in distress. Then again, it could also have been due to the fear of getting dragged off to court, a very costly risk to take for dailies, many of which were themselves not doing much better than PAL. The one paper that did run stories on Tan and PAL, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, ended up as the respondent in a P100-million libel suit filed by the billionaire himself last September. The paper had headlined a story saying Tan bled the airline dry and made P25 billion in the process. The case was dismissed by the Makati regional trial court on February 16.
Today columnist Dan Mariano, however, maintains that in general, “PAL has been getting sympathetic coverage from the press.” He points out that the airline actually maintained friendly ties with the media long before Tan came into the picture. For years, PAL made it a practice to regularly give free tickets to print reporters, editors and publishers and broadcast personalities. Newspapers also rely on PAL to bring their copies to the provinces. Concludes Mariano: “No wonder then that whenever PAL employees go on strike, many news organizations are inclined to portray them as villains.”
Unfortunately for Tan, the good press didn’t seem to do him much good. A survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations (SWS) last year found Lucio Tan to be infamous—four out of five adult Filipinos know him, but he is more distrusted than trusted by the public. Wrote SWS director Mahar Mangahas: “From this it would seem that the media persons recently named by labor leader Filemon ‘Popoy’ Lagman as being on Lucio Tan’s payroll have been ineffective—though another possibility is that those in the so-called envelopmental media have at least kept Mr. Tan’s trust rating from getting even worse.”
BUT MORE visible and effective than ownership or an intimate relationship with the press is the clout Lucio Tan wields by practically subsidizing the media, thanks to the numerous ad placements of his companies. Tan’s firms are among the country’s top advertisers. In 1996 alone, his top three companies—Asia Brewery, Tanduay Distillery and Fortune Tobacco—altogether plunked down almost a billion pesos in media advertising. A year later, just when the economic crisis began, the figure jumped to P1.621 billion.
The bulk of Tan’s advertising money is spent on radio and television, the media most relied upon to reach the targets of his consumer products, the masa. For airing commercials of Hope, Winston, Champion, More and Mark cigarettes, Fortune Tobacco paid the television industry nearly P600 million in 1997, and the radio industry almost P400 million. In contrast, Fortune spent only P17.55 million for print ads.
Tan’s ad money is spread out to various television and radio stations, and following industry practice, is placed in programs which are most watched by consumers. His managers are said to report directly to a committee—chaired by Tan himself—which has made it a policy to underwrite only programs considered Tan-friendly.
These managers deal directly with the sales departments of broadcast stations, the units that sell airtime to clients. The managers also monitor whether the advertisements come out and whether the program over which it is aired did not make any derogatory remark about the product or the client himself, i.e. Tan. Hence, when Korina Sanchez read aloud that Lucio Tan was a tax evader in 1996, Fortune Tobacco executives immediately pulled their ads out of her program. Sanchez can only call it “pure blackmail and harassment.”
Unlike other networks, the giant ABS-CBN could probably afford to let go of the Tan account because several others are waiting in line to fill its slot. But it’s a sizable account nonetheless; in 1998, the network earned P98 million from advertisements placed by Tan-owned companies in Channel 2 alone, not counting radio station DZMM.
It really isn’t the big companies like ABS-CBN that are most affected by pressure from advertisers, but rather the smaller broadcast stations and outfits that jostle for the advertising crumbs thrown away by the big boys. But even the mid-size stations are bound not to pass up any advertising revenue, especially in times of crisis.
A major broadcast network has developed a modus vivendi as far as Lucio Tan is concerned. “There are stories about Lucio Tan you really can’t kill,” says a TV news executive connected with the network. But rather than get annoying calls from Tan’s minions, the station has come up with the policy that “if we’re running a story on Lucio Tan, we pull out his advertisement from that program and put it elsewhere.”
“Mr. Tan has all the right to withdraw his sponsorship of a program if he’s being attacked! ” Mison declares. “Can you imagine listening to a news program that calls Mr. Tan a tax cheat, then it’s brought to you by Tanduay Rhum? You’re paying for that program and then you’re being attacked in that program! Hindi tama (It’s not right)!”
To be fair, there are other advertisers who would not hesitate to use their business clout to whip the media into line. For years, the weekly magazine show ‘The Probe Team’ earned considerable income producing “The Good News,” a regular segment on successful entrepreneurs sponsored by another major broadcast advertiser, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT). But when ‘Probe’ producers did a story on rival Bayantel and the sorry state of phone services in the country, PLDT immediately withdrew its ads from ‘Probe.’ The PLDT account was small but substantial enough for an independent outfit like Probe, which competes with the established and station-produced programs for revenue. But that was three years ago and time seems to have healed the rift. ‘Probe’ will soon be producing “The Good News” for PLDT again.
Lessons like this teach broadcast journalists especially to be shallow and sensationalistic. Rather than make insightful inquiries into the country’s economic problems and consumer woes that might offend advertisers, television and radio news programs encourage safer stories that deal with sex, crime and entertainment. Many years ago, Fortune Tobacco took ABC Channel 5 to task for airing, on a Fortune-sponsored news bulletin, a story on the harmful effects of smoking. Nowadays, the company would rather subsidize “harmless” ventures like sports news or late night movies than serious news programs.
Pressure from advertisers has also fostered self-censorship among broadcast journalists. A managing editor in an AM radio station says it’s not uncommon for reporters to first check with bosses before covering touchy stories involving big advertisers. Once they hear the advice, “Pare, may account yan(That one has an account)!” they retreat.
In television news and public affairs, executives warn correspondents to stay away from stories that might offend patrons. A story on the cattle industry and the country’s beef supply, no matter how harmless, might anger a major fast-food chain. A report on bottled water may irk a water company, or even the water utility. And the worries go on.
Offending advertisers—any advertiser, really—could be costly. In Lucio Tan’s case, the flight of Fortune Tobacco could mean millions of pesos in potential revenue, plus triple jeopardy. Not one but at least two other major Tan account could go down with it.
Now with Tan rumored on a buying binge—he is supposedly interested in acquiring businesses that include Meralco and Mimosa, PNB and Petron—there may be even less room for journalists to maneuver. Big Brother may truly have arrived.
There’s a postscript to this report. Sometimes, sensitive stories have a way of turning up in the most unexpected places, no matter how hard a reporter avoids it.
As the rest of the country greeted 1999 with fireworks, ABS-CBN reporter Mike Cohen was seated on the steps of the Guesthouse in Malacañang, waiting for a story to take home for his early morning program, ‘Alas Singko Y Medya.’ Earlier, he had gotten clearance from Palace guards and staff to be there for a story about a presidential son who had just moved into Malacañang. Upon arriving there, he was told the First Family was having New Year’s eve dinner with the closest of the president’s friends—the inner circle. And so Cohen and his crew waited.
The party apparently broke up shortly past 2:00 am of January 1, and the First Family was seeing its guests to the door. Who would appear but Lucio Tan with a tipsy President Joseph Estrada whom Cohen overheard telling the tycoon: “Pare, don’t worry about your problems. This year will be better.”
Cohen had no idea what those problems were and probably couldn’t care less. For moments later, his thoughts were on trying to get out of the place fast. The president had seen Cohen and his camera crew recording the whole thing. Estrada’s amiable countenance changed, recalls Cohen, and after Tan left, the visibly furious president demanded that they turn over the tape to him at once. “He was really upset,” says Cohen. “My only thought was on getting out of there alive. What if he hit me?”
Estrada reached down to yank the tape out of the camera himself, and he may be the only one who knows what Cohen and his crew caught on camera that New Year’s morning. But it sent yet another message to media: taipan Tan’s clout goes all the way to the top.
Saturday
About Face
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20091010-229286/About-face
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:09:00 10/10/2009
THE PRESIDENTIAL Commission on Good Government, apparently obeying the recommendations of Solicitor General (also Justice Secretary) Agnes Devanadera, announced that it had turned down the offer of Mariano Tanenglian to turn state witness against his brother Lucio Tan in exchange for immunity from suit.
The news report on Wednesday, October 7, caught me by surprise, because the day before, I had received a call from PCGG Commissioner Ricardo Abcede, inviting me to lunch with his colleagues so that they could “explain our side.”
I nixed the lunch, but before I agreed to meet them at the PCGG office next week, I asked him categorically whether the PCGG was going to accept Tanenglian’s offer or not. And his answer was a categorical “Yes.” Which was a pleasant surprise, and I even congratulated him on their independence.
I called Commissioner Abcede up on Friday noon and asked him why the about-face in his answer to me. He replied that he didn’t think that he answered me in the affirmative.
Now I have my senior moments, but I don’t think that I would have congratulated him if he had said the PCGG was accepting Devanadera’s recommendation. I wonder what he thought I was congratulating him about.
In any case, the Inquirer news report quoted Abcede as saying that the conditions set by Tanenglian, particularly his request for immunity from suit, were “disadvantageous to the government”; “If he wants to testify, he should not set any conditions”; and “They are brothers. What if he suddenly changes his mind and turns his back on us? What then?”
And finally, just in case those arguments weren’t convincing enough, Abcede stated that Tanenglian’s offer “might already be too late” because the Sandiganbayan had already decided it would no longer hear testimony from government witnesses.
My column last week made short shrift of the “disadvantageous to government” argument (ridiculous -- the Office of the Solicitor General had itself said, before Devanadera got into the picture, that Tanenglian’s testimony would fortify the government’s case); and that the what-if-he-changes-his-mind-and-turns-his-back-on-us argument (draft agreement --paragraph 5) provided that in such a situation, the agreement would be deemed revoked. So what about the other two statements of Abcede?
“If he wants to testify, he should not set any conditions.” Excuse me. Does anyone in his right mind expect that Tanenglian, or anyone else for that matter, will give self-incriminatory testimony without the protection of immunity from suit? That is precisely what a grant of immunity is all about.
Moreover, the draft immunity agreement that was discussed by Tanenglian’s lawyers and the OSG/PCGG is almost a replica of the immunity agreement that was entered into between Placido Mapa Jr. and the PCGG -- an agreement that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Tanenglian wasn’t asking for any more than was granted to Mapa.
And while we are clearing the air, it should also be stated that Tanenglian’s lawyers claim that it was the OSG/PCGG which had initially approached Tanenglian about his turning state witness -- this because of the much-publicized and evidently acrimonious breakup between the brothers Lucio and Mariano.
I tend to believe this claim because, sometime in May, I called up Solicitor Mauricia Dinopol, and in the course of our conversation, asked her point blank whether the OSG was making any move to get Tanenglian to be a state witness, and she answered in the affirmative, saying that they were trying to set up an appointment with his lawyers. Which is why I held off writing about the case.
And indeed, discussions took place: On June 1 at the Makati office of the OSG (with Solicitors Dinopol, Lim, Madamba, whose sincerity I have as yet no reason to doubt) where the offer of immunity was made in exchange for Tanenglian’s testimony; again on July 8 with the OSG and a representative of the PCGG, where Tanenglian, through his lawyers, agreed to testify in exchange for the immunity offer (the reaction to that offer on the part of the government representatives was described as “ecstatic” and “euphoric,” and again one can understand why); and finally on July 13, this time with the PCGG commissioners in full force (Chair Sabio, Abcede, Javier and Nario) and with Lim and Madamba for the OSG.
At that July 13 meeting where the mood was described as “exhilarated” and “elated,” the draft immunity agreement (modeled after the Mapa agreement) was presented and reached in principle, subject only to the official opinion of the OSG. Everyone also agreed that time was of the essence.
Does that sound as if anyone thought that the government would be disadvantaged? Please. And yet, after it reached Devanadera’s desk, there was this long, unexplained wait -- until her recommendation came out: reject the offer.
And then the PCGG comes out and also rejects the offer. I feel for the professionals at the OSG and PCGG who worked so hard to get Tanenglian on their side.
Finally, Abcede’s excuse/justification that anyway, it may be “too late” because the Sandiganbayan already closed the door to additional testimony, is the lamest of all. That court order came about sometime in April.
So if it were “too late,” why did any of the discussions with the Tanenglian camp take place at all? It means that the professionals in the OSG and the PCGG must have thought that they could handle that obstacle. Until their higher-ups intervened.
Again, I ask: What is President Macapagal-Arroyo going to do about this?
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:09:00 10/10/2009
THE PRESIDENTIAL Commission on Good Government, apparently obeying the recommendations of Solicitor General (also Justice Secretary) Agnes Devanadera, announced that it had turned down the offer of Mariano Tanenglian to turn state witness against his brother Lucio Tan in exchange for immunity from suit.
The news report on Wednesday, October 7, caught me by surprise, because the day before, I had received a call from PCGG Commissioner Ricardo Abcede, inviting me to lunch with his colleagues so that they could “explain our side.”
I nixed the lunch, but before I agreed to meet them at the PCGG office next week, I asked him categorically whether the PCGG was going to accept Tanenglian’s offer or not. And his answer was a categorical “Yes.” Which was a pleasant surprise, and I even congratulated him on their independence.
I called Commissioner Abcede up on Friday noon and asked him why the about-face in his answer to me. He replied that he didn’t think that he answered me in the affirmative.
Now I have my senior moments, but I don’t think that I would have congratulated him if he had said the PCGG was accepting Devanadera’s recommendation. I wonder what he thought I was congratulating him about.
In any case, the Inquirer news report quoted Abcede as saying that the conditions set by Tanenglian, particularly his request for immunity from suit, were “disadvantageous to the government”; “If he wants to testify, he should not set any conditions”; and “They are brothers. What if he suddenly changes his mind and turns his back on us? What then?”
And finally, just in case those arguments weren’t convincing enough, Abcede stated that Tanenglian’s offer “might already be too late” because the Sandiganbayan had already decided it would no longer hear testimony from government witnesses.
My column last week made short shrift of the “disadvantageous to government” argument (ridiculous -- the Office of the Solicitor General had itself said, before Devanadera got into the picture, that Tanenglian’s testimony would fortify the government’s case); and that the what-if-he-changes-his-mind-and-turns-his-back-on-us argument (draft agreement --paragraph 5) provided that in such a situation, the agreement would be deemed revoked. So what about the other two statements of Abcede?
“If he wants to testify, he should not set any conditions.” Excuse me. Does anyone in his right mind expect that Tanenglian, or anyone else for that matter, will give self-incriminatory testimony without the protection of immunity from suit? That is precisely what a grant of immunity is all about.
Moreover, the draft immunity agreement that was discussed by Tanenglian’s lawyers and the OSG/PCGG is almost a replica of the immunity agreement that was entered into between Placido Mapa Jr. and the PCGG -- an agreement that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Tanenglian wasn’t asking for any more than was granted to Mapa.
And while we are clearing the air, it should also be stated that Tanenglian’s lawyers claim that it was the OSG/PCGG which had initially approached Tanenglian about his turning state witness -- this because of the much-publicized and evidently acrimonious breakup between the brothers Lucio and Mariano.
I tend to believe this claim because, sometime in May, I called up Solicitor Mauricia Dinopol, and in the course of our conversation, asked her point blank whether the OSG was making any move to get Tanenglian to be a state witness, and she answered in the affirmative, saying that they were trying to set up an appointment with his lawyers. Which is why I held off writing about the case.
And indeed, discussions took place: On June 1 at the Makati office of the OSG (with Solicitors Dinopol, Lim, Madamba, whose sincerity I have as yet no reason to doubt) where the offer of immunity was made in exchange for Tanenglian’s testimony; again on July 8 with the OSG and a representative of the PCGG, where Tanenglian, through his lawyers, agreed to testify in exchange for the immunity offer (the reaction to that offer on the part of the government representatives was described as “ecstatic” and “euphoric,” and again one can understand why); and finally on July 13, this time with the PCGG commissioners in full force (Chair Sabio, Abcede, Javier and Nario) and with Lim and Madamba for the OSG.
At that July 13 meeting where the mood was described as “exhilarated” and “elated,” the draft immunity agreement (modeled after the Mapa agreement) was presented and reached in principle, subject only to the official opinion of the OSG. Everyone also agreed that time was of the essence.
Does that sound as if anyone thought that the government would be disadvantaged? Please. And yet, after it reached Devanadera’s desk, there was this long, unexplained wait -- until her recommendation came out: reject the offer.
And then the PCGG comes out and also rejects the offer. I feel for the professionals at the OSG and PCGG who worked so hard to get Tanenglian on their side.
Finally, Abcede’s excuse/justification that anyway, it may be “too late” because the Sandiganbayan already closed the door to additional testimony, is the lamest of all. That court order came about sometime in April.
So if it were “too late,” why did any of the discussions with the Tanenglian camp take place at all? It means that the professionals in the OSG and the PCGG must have thought that they could handle that obstacle. Until their higher-ups intervened.
Again, I ask: What is President Macapagal-Arroyo going to do about this?
Wednesday
PCGG thumbs down offer of Lucio Tan’s brod
PCGG thumbs down offer of Lucio Tan’s brod
By Philip Tubeza
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 09:20:00 10/07/2009
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091007-228793/PCGG-thumbs-down-offer-of-Lucio-Tans-brod
MANILA, Philippines—The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) yesterday turned down the offer of Mariano Tanenglian to testify against his estranged brother, business tycoon Lucio Tan, in a Marcos ill-gotten wealth case.
PCGG Commissioner Ricardo Abcede said the conditions set by Tanenglian, particularly his request for immunity from suit, were “disadvantageous to the government.”
“If he wants to testify, he should not set any conditions,” he said.
“They are brothers. What if he suddenly changes his mind and turns his back on us? What then?” Abcede said.
Abcede said Tanenglian’s offer “might already be too late” because the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court had already decided that it would no longer hear any testimonies from government witnesses in the 20-year-old case.
Tanenglian is one of the respondents in the case, which is related to the Marcoses’ alleged stake in Lucio Tan’s companies.
Earlier, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had advised the PCGG to turn down the proposed immunity agreement with Tanenglian.
In a nine-page memorandum to PCGG Chair Camilo Sabio, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera said the proposed agreement would be “grossly disadvantageous” to the government.
“Up to this time, Tanenglian has not given the PCGG any new information that could perhaps further strengthen the republic’s case...he merely relies on documents already available to the republic,” Devanadera said.
Devanadera said there was also no certainty that Tanenglian would provide useful information at all.
Tanenglian offered to turn government witness in exchange for being dropped from the list of respondents in the case.
He also wanted immunity in connection with other cases related to the Lucio Tan group of companies.
By Philip Tubeza
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 09:20:00 10/07/2009
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20091007-228793/PCGG-thumbs-down-offer-of-Lucio-Tans-brod
MANILA, Philippines—The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) yesterday turned down the offer of Mariano Tanenglian to testify against his estranged brother, business tycoon Lucio Tan, in a Marcos ill-gotten wealth case.
PCGG Commissioner Ricardo Abcede said the conditions set by Tanenglian, particularly his request for immunity from suit, were “disadvantageous to the government.”
“If he wants to testify, he should not set any conditions,” he said.
“They are brothers. What if he suddenly changes his mind and turns his back on us? What then?” Abcede said.
Abcede said Tanenglian’s offer “might already be too late” because the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court had already decided that it would no longer hear any testimonies from government witnesses in the 20-year-old case.
Tanenglian is one of the respondents in the case, which is related to the Marcoses’ alleged stake in Lucio Tan’s companies.
Earlier, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had advised the PCGG to turn down the proposed immunity agreement with Tanenglian.
In a nine-page memorandum to PCGG Chair Camilo Sabio, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera said the proposed agreement would be “grossly disadvantageous” to the government.
“Up to this time, Tanenglian has not given the PCGG any new information that could perhaps further strengthen the republic’s case...he merely relies on documents already available to the republic,” Devanadera said.
Devanadera said there was also no certainty that Tanenglian would provide useful information at all.
Tanenglian offered to turn government witness in exchange for being dropped from the list of respondents in the case.
He also wanted immunity in connection with other cases related to the Lucio Tan group of companies.
Sunday
Tortured claims
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20091003-228103/Tortured-claims
Tortured claims
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:22:00 10/03/2009
SO NOW it is all out in the Open.
IT’s in this column two weeks ago, I stated that the government didn’t seem to want to win its Sandiganbayan Civil Case 005 against 29 individuals (including Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Lucio Tan and Mariano Tanenglian) and 40 corporations (including Tan’s flagship corporations). Why? Because, among others, it was dragging its feet in offering immunity to Mariano in exchange for his turning state witness against his brother Lucio. Mariano and his lawyers had actually gone to the Sandiganbayan, asking it to compel the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to act on the deal which was on the table.
Let us make no mistake. Tanenglian’s testimony on business deals and other transactions between Tan and Marcos would certainly strengthen (beyond all legal machinations) the case against Tan, confirming as it would, Bongbong Marcos’ testimony on the matter, as well as the documentary evidence that PCGG lawyer Catalino Generillo had painstakingly put together (before he was fired by the Office of the Solicitor General). After all, Tanenglian was known as Lucio’s right hand man for over 40 years and the treasurer of all the Tan corporations, until a rift between the brothers occurred early this year. (Tanenglian was prevented from entering corporate offices and removed from all his board memberships.) Tanenglian knows where all the bodies are.
In other words, Tanenglian’s testimony, in exchange for immunity, offers the best and strongest chance the government would ever have of winning a case against Tan. (It has lost all others.)
All these considerations, however, seem to have carried no weight with Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera. In fact, two days after my column came out, the newspapers reported that in a legal opinion sent to the PCGG, she had recommended that Tanenglian’s “application for criminal and civil immunity” be rejected by the PCGG.
How can anyone justify turning her back on this golden, almost heaven-sent opportunity to take advantage of the Tan consigliere? That’s not how Devanadera looks at it. She wants the deal “rejected outright.” Why? From what can be gathered from the news reports, firs t, she claims that the deal will be grossly disadvantageous to the republic, because, among other things, while Tanenglian obliges himself to provide useful information once the immunity agreement is executed, there is no certainty that he will provide useful information at all, and yet the case against him will be dropped and any sequestration or lien on his property will be dismissed. (NB: I am informed that the draft agreement between Tanenglian and PCGG was patterned after the latter’s agreement with Placido Mapa Jr. –both provide for the revocation of the immunity if the terms are not complied with.)
She also claims that Tanenglian’s motives for turning state witness are obscure, and she suspects that the proposed grant of immunity may be used by Tan and the other defendants, in connivance with Tanenglian, to protect their shareholdings by transferring their shares of stocks in favor of Tanenglian, so that the shares will now be out of the government’s reach. But in almost the same breath, she also says that she doesn’t want the government to get entangled in the crossfire between the two “warring” brothers.
And then, she opines amid all this that Tanenglian’s admissions would have “zero credibility” since they are coming out after more than 20 years, and it would be better for the republic to rely on Bongbong.
The last time I saw such tortured, tenuous claims from her was when, as acting justice secretary, she overruled her prosecutor—with unseemly haste—and found that there was probable cause to file murder charges against Louie Gonzalez because the Makati Medical Center, where Louie was confined under restraints on the night of the murder, was 15 minutes from the murder scene, and it was “not impossible” for him to have done it.
But let’s leave the merits (or lack of them) of her Tanenglian opinion, and turn our attention to certain glaring inconsistencies between her stand and that of her underlings.
Number one, why did the OSG itself, in a motion for reconsideration to the Sandiganbayan last May, manifest that the testimony of Mariano Tanenglian, among other witnesses, was “essential to fortify its (plaintiff) claims and to give the Honorable Sandiganbayan a well-informed set of facts to serve as basis for its ruling on the case”?
Number two, why did the OSG, through Associate Solicitor Anthony Lemuel T. Lim, contact Tanenglian’s lawyers and inquire about the possibility of his being a state witness?
Number three, why did Lim, State Solicitor Mauricia Dinopol and Assistant Solicitor John Emmanuel Madamba meet in their office with Tanenglian’s lawyers; with subsequent meetings on July 8 and July 13, where an agreement in principle was reached, subject only to the formal OSG opinion?
What those three events suggest is that Devanadera’s underlings were very eager to get Tanenglian as state witness. They wanted to win. But then, along comes Devanadera, overturning their plans at the last minute, and coming out with a convoluted legal opinion to justify her actions.
Which all leads to my last two questions: Why does Devanadera want to lose the case against Tan? And what is President Macapagal-Arroyo going to do about it? I’d ask the justice secretary first, of course, but that would be Devanadera too.
Tortured claims
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:22:00 10/03/2009
SO NOW it is all out in the Open.
IT’s in this column two weeks ago, I stated that the government didn’t seem to want to win its Sandiganbayan Civil Case 005 against 29 individuals (including Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Lucio Tan and Mariano Tanenglian) and 40 corporations (including Tan’s flagship corporations). Why? Because, among others, it was dragging its feet in offering immunity to Mariano in exchange for his turning state witness against his brother Lucio. Mariano and his lawyers had actually gone to the Sandiganbayan, asking it to compel the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to act on the deal which was on the table.
Let us make no mistake. Tanenglian’s testimony on business deals and other transactions between Tan and Marcos would certainly strengthen (beyond all legal machinations) the case against Tan, confirming as it would, Bongbong Marcos’ testimony on the matter, as well as the documentary evidence that PCGG lawyer Catalino Generillo had painstakingly put together (before he was fired by the Office of the Solicitor General). After all, Tanenglian was known as Lucio’s right hand man for over 40 years and the treasurer of all the Tan corporations, until a rift between the brothers occurred early this year. (Tanenglian was prevented from entering corporate offices and removed from all his board memberships.) Tanenglian knows where all the bodies are.
In other words, Tanenglian’s testimony, in exchange for immunity, offers the best and strongest chance the government would ever have of winning a case against Tan. (It has lost all others.)
All these considerations, however, seem to have carried no weight with Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera. In fact, two days after my column came out, the newspapers reported that in a legal opinion sent to the PCGG, she had recommended that Tanenglian’s “application for criminal and civil immunity” be rejected by the PCGG.
How can anyone justify turning her back on this golden, almost heaven-sent opportunity to take advantage of the Tan consigliere? That’s not how Devanadera looks at it. She wants the deal “rejected outright.” Why? From what can be gathered from the news reports, firs t, she claims that the deal will be grossly disadvantageous to the republic, because, among other things, while Tanenglian obliges himself to provide useful information once the immunity agreement is executed, there is no certainty that he will provide useful information at all, and yet the case against him will be dropped and any sequestration or lien on his property will be dismissed. (NB: I am informed that the draft agreement between Tanenglian and PCGG was patterned after the latter’s agreement with Placido Mapa Jr. –both provide for the revocation of the immunity if the terms are not complied with.)
She also claims that Tanenglian’s motives for turning state witness are obscure, and she suspects that the proposed grant of immunity may be used by Tan and the other defendants, in connivance with Tanenglian, to protect their shareholdings by transferring their shares of stocks in favor of Tanenglian, so that the shares will now be out of the government’s reach. But in almost the same breath, she also says that she doesn’t want the government to get entangled in the crossfire between the two “warring” brothers.
And then, she opines amid all this that Tanenglian’s admissions would have “zero credibility” since they are coming out after more than 20 years, and it would be better for the republic to rely on Bongbong.
The last time I saw such tortured, tenuous claims from her was when, as acting justice secretary, she overruled her prosecutor—with unseemly haste—and found that there was probable cause to file murder charges against Louie Gonzalez because the Makati Medical Center, where Louie was confined under restraints on the night of the murder, was 15 minutes from the murder scene, and it was “not impossible” for him to have done it.
But let’s leave the merits (or lack of them) of her Tanenglian opinion, and turn our attention to certain glaring inconsistencies between her stand and that of her underlings.
Number one, why did the OSG itself, in a motion for reconsideration to the Sandiganbayan last May, manifest that the testimony of Mariano Tanenglian, among other witnesses, was “essential to fortify its (plaintiff) claims and to give the Honorable Sandiganbayan a well-informed set of facts to serve as basis for its ruling on the case”?
Number two, why did the OSG, through Associate Solicitor Anthony Lemuel T. Lim, contact Tanenglian’s lawyers and inquire about the possibility of his being a state witness?
Number three, why did Lim, State Solicitor Mauricia Dinopol and Assistant Solicitor John Emmanuel Madamba meet in their office with Tanenglian’s lawyers; with subsequent meetings on July 8 and July 13, where an agreement in principle was reached, subject only to the formal OSG opinion?
What those three events suggest is that Devanadera’s underlings were very eager to get Tanenglian as state witness. They wanted to win. But then, along comes Devanadera, overturning their plans at the last minute, and coming out with a convoluted legal opinion to justify her actions.
Which all leads to my last two questions: Why does Devanadera want to lose the case against Tan? And what is President Macapagal-Arroyo going to do about it? I’d ask the justice secretary first, of course, but that would be Devanadera too.
Tycoon's offer to testify vs brod junked!
Tycoon's offer to testify vs brod junked!
http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php?issue=2009-09-21&sec=1&aid=103415
By: Hector Lawas
SOLICITOR General and concurrent Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera has turned down the offer of Filipino-Chinese billionaire Mariano Tanenglian to turn state witness in the ill-gotten wealth case against his estranged brother, tycoon Lucio Tan, and several others, saying his motive was obscure and his request for immunity is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
The Office of the Solicitor General has transmitted to the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) its recommendation to reject Tanenglian’s conditional offer.
In a nine-page memorandum to PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio, Devanadera stressed that Tanenglian’s offer to turn his back against Tan is dubious and questionable since the siblings are now entangled in a bitter personal dispute that has already reached the halls of courts.
Devanadera added that the government does not want to get entangled in the crossfire between two warring brothers. She explained that Tanenglian’s offer “would serve no useful purpose” for the government, especially that “such admission would have zero credibility in light of the considerable delay of more than 20 years before he comes out with it.”
“Looking at the instant draft Immunity Agreement, it appears there are matters of critical concern and consideration that negate its approval and execution. In view of the foregoing, the undersigned (Devanadera) respectfully recommend that the draft Immunity Agreement be rejected outright,” the chief state lawyer said.
In the draft of the “Immunity Agreement proposal,” Tanenglian offers to cooperate with the government by providing information relevant to the case and by making himself available as witness for the republic, if requested by state prosecutors.
In exchange, Tanenglian urged the PCGG to grant him and his immediate family civil and criminal immunity. He also asked to be dropped as a defendant in a civil case being pursued by the government and the lifting of all writs of sequestration, particularly his shares of stocks in the Lucio Tan Group of Companies.
“Tanenglian wants to be dropped as a defendant in Civil Case No. 005; that any sequestration, lien and encumbrance on his property, particularly his shares of stocks in the corporation subject of the suit be lifted; and that the government’s claims on said property be dismissed with prejudice,” the Solgen noted.
Devanadera cited past Supreme Court, which “took special occasions to pronounce that immunity can be extended only to witnesses who provide information to testify against a respondent, defendant or accused in an ill-gotten wealth case.”
In the case of Tanenglian, Devanadera noted that he “was even a treasurer in some of the corporations” and is “named principal defendant who… actively collaborated with the Marcoses in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.”
She also pointed out that in the past, immunity was only given to alleged cronies of the late President Ferdinand Marcos where the recipient spontaneously cooperated with the government and gave material information before the execution of any compromised agreement.
“In contrast, up to this time, Tanenglian has not given the PCGG any new information that could perhaps further strengthen the Republic’s case. He merely relies on documents already available to the Republic. While he obliges himself to provide useful information once the Immunity Agreement is executed, there is no certainty whether he will provide useful information at all. This being so, the proposal of Tanenglian is grossly disadvantageous to the Republic,” the solicitor general said.
“We can better rely on the veracity of Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr.’s voluntary testimony for the Republic, sans immunity or any concession of some sort, having seen or identified these vital documents,” she added.
In doubting the motives of Tanenglian in offering himself as government witness, Devanadera said, “Tanenglian’s motives are obscure. If Tanenglian is only protecting his existing interest in the Lucio Tan Group of Companies, then why does he need to execute an Immunity Agreement if, in the opinion of his counsels, the prosecution in Civil Case No. 005 is weak. The inference that can be made from such actuation is that either the evidence for the prosecution is strong or she may only just use the agreement against Lucio Tan.”
Also, Devanandera doubted the real motive of Tanenglian, saying the proposed special grant of immunity may be used by Lucio Tan and the other defendants, in connivance with Tanenglian, as a scheme to protect their shareholdings by transferring their shares of stocks in favor of Tanenglian.
“Once this scheme is materialized and the republic succeeds in Civil Case No. 005, the fruits of victory would not be reaped since there will be no property that could be reached by the writ of execution. Any success in the instant case might result to an empty victory,” she said.
In 1987, the PCGG filed a forfeiture case against Lucio Tan and several of his companies, including Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery, Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings, Dominium Realty, Construction Corp. and Shareholdings Inc. The case docketed as Civil Case No. 005 has dragged on for more than 20 years.
The prosecution alleged that Ferdinand Marcos had 60 percent beneficial ownership in said companies, which beneficial interests were held in trust by Tan personally and through his family members and business associates who appeared as the recorded stockholders of said companies.
http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php?issue=2009-09-21&sec=1&aid=103415
By: Hector Lawas
SOLICITOR General and concurrent Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera has turned down the offer of Filipino-Chinese billionaire Mariano Tanenglian to turn state witness in the ill-gotten wealth case against his estranged brother, tycoon Lucio Tan, and several others, saying his motive was obscure and his request for immunity is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
The Office of the Solicitor General has transmitted to the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) its recommendation to reject Tanenglian’s conditional offer.
In a nine-page memorandum to PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio, Devanadera stressed that Tanenglian’s offer to turn his back against Tan is dubious and questionable since the siblings are now entangled in a bitter personal dispute that has already reached the halls of courts.
Devanadera added that the government does not want to get entangled in the crossfire between two warring brothers. She explained that Tanenglian’s offer “would serve no useful purpose” for the government, especially that “such admission would have zero credibility in light of the considerable delay of more than 20 years before he comes out with it.”
“Looking at the instant draft Immunity Agreement, it appears there are matters of critical concern and consideration that negate its approval and execution. In view of the foregoing, the undersigned (Devanadera) respectfully recommend that the draft Immunity Agreement be rejected outright,” the chief state lawyer said.
In the draft of the “Immunity Agreement proposal,” Tanenglian offers to cooperate with the government by providing information relevant to the case and by making himself available as witness for the republic, if requested by state prosecutors.
In exchange, Tanenglian urged the PCGG to grant him and his immediate family civil and criminal immunity. He also asked to be dropped as a defendant in a civil case being pursued by the government and the lifting of all writs of sequestration, particularly his shares of stocks in the Lucio Tan Group of Companies.
“Tanenglian wants to be dropped as a defendant in Civil Case No. 005; that any sequestration, lien and encumbrance on his property, particularly his shares of stocks in the corporation subject of the suit be lifted; and that the government’s claims on said property be dismissed with prejudice,” the Solgen noted.
Devanadera cited past Supreme Court, which “took special occasions to pronounce that immunity can be extended only to witnesses who provide information to testify against a respondent, defendant or accused in an ill-gotten wealth case.”
In the case of Tanenglian, Devanadera noted that he “was even a treasurer in some of the corporations” and is “named principal defendant who… actively collaborated with the Marcoses in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.”
She also pointed out that in the past, immunity was only given to alleged cronies of the late President Ferdinand Marcos where the recipient spontaneously cooperated with the government and gave material information before the execution of any compromised agreement.
“In contrast, up to this time, Tanenglian has not given the PCGG any new information that could perhaps further strengthen the Republic’s case. He merely relies on documents already available to the Republic. While he obliges himself to provide useful information once the Immunity Agreement is executed, there is no certainty whether he will provide useful information at all. This being so, the proposal of Tanenglian is grossly disadvantageous to the Republic,” the solicitor general said.
“We can better rely on the veracity of Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr.’s voluntary testimony for the Republic, sans immunity or any concession of some sort, having seen or identified these vital documents,” she added.
In doubting the motives of Tanenglian in offering himself as government witness, Devanadera said, “Tanenglian’s motives are obscure. If Tanenglian is only protecting his existing interest in the Lucio Tan Group of Companies, then why does he need to execute an Immunity Agreement if, in the opinion of his counsels, the prosecution in Civil Case No. 005 is weak. The inference that can be made from such actuation is that either the evidence for the prosecution is strong or she may only just use the agreement against Lucio Tan.”
Also, Devanandera doubted the real motive of Tanenglian, saying the proposed special grant of immunity may be used by Lucio Tan and the other defendants, in connivance with Tanenglian, as a scheme to protect their shareholdings by transferring their shares of stocks in favor of Tanenglian.
“Once this scheme is materialized and the republic succeeds in Civil Case No. 005, the fruits of victory would not be reaped since there will be no property that could be reached by the writ of execution. Any success in the instant case might result to an empty victory,” she said.
In 1987, the PCGG filed a forfeiture case against Lucio Tan and several of his companies, including Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery, Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings, Dominium Realty, Construction Corp. and Shareholdings Inc. The case docketed as Civil Case No. 005 has dragged on for more than 20 years.
The prosecution alleged that Ferdinand Marcos had 60 percent beneficial ownership in said companies, which beneficial interests were held in trust by Tan personally and through his family members and business associates who appeared as the recorded stockholders of said companies.
Thursday
Lucio Tan continues to block brother’s testimony
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090930-227716/Lucio-Tan-continues-to-block-brothers-testimony
Lucio Tan continues to block brother’s testimony
By Edson C. Tandoc Jr.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 19:22:00 09/30/2009
MANILA, Philippines—Businessman Lucio Tan on Wednesday moved to block an attempt by his estranged brother Mariano Tanenglian to turn state witness in the government’s forfeiture case against the two of them.
Tan also accused private lawyer Catalino Generillo of "intimidation." The attorney had said he would present documents he was still keeping if Tanenglian was allowed to testify.
After 20 years, the Sandiganbayan antigraft court has ordered the government to rest its case, rejecting on July 13 the prosecution’s appeal for more time to present evidence. However, Tanenglian asked the court to reopen the trial to allow him to testify against Tan.
The government seeks to prove that Tan’s assets formed part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses.
Tan and Tanenglian are at odds over personal andbusiness reasons.
Tanenglian is also a defendant in the case, but he offered himself as a witness against his brother in exchange for immunity. When the Presidential Commission on Good Government did not act on his offer, Tanenglian asked the court three weeks ago to order the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General to resolve the matter.
When the OSG announced more than a week ago it was rejecting Tanenglian’s offer, his lawyer Emilio Quiroz told the Inquirer that Tanenglian would take his appeal to Malacañang.
In his opposition filed with the 5th Division on Wednesday, Tan said the court should deny Tanenglian’s motion and leave the matter to the PCGG and the OSG.
Tan said his brother’s motion was “officious" and constituted "undue interference" in the way the government chose to prosecute its case.
Tan also questioned why Generillo, a former OSG lawyer who was taken off the case, continued to hold on to documents despite the government’s demand that they be returned.
Generillo claimed he had intellectual property rightsover the documents despite a court order to return them to the OSG. He said he was willing to present the documents with Tanenglian’s testimony.
Since Generillo was no longer involved with the prosecution, “the statement is not only officious but a brazen form of "intimidation," Tan said.
Lucio Tan continues to block brother’s testimony
By Edson C. Tandoc Jr.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 19:22:00 09/30/2009
MANILA, Philippines—Businessman Lucio Tan on Wednesday moved to block an attempt by his estranged brother Mariano Tanenglian to turn state witness in the government’s forfeiture case against the two of them.
Tan also accused private lawyer Catalino Generillo of "intimidation." The attorney had said he would present documents he was still keeping if Tanenglian was allowed to testify.
After 20 years, the Sandiganbayan antigraft court has ordered the government to rest its case, rejecting on July 13 the prosecution’s appeal for more time to present evidence. However, Tanenglian asked the court to reopen the trial to allow him to testify against Tan.
The government seeks to prove that Tan’s assets formed part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses.
Tan and Tanenglian are at odds over personal andbusiness reasons.
Tanenglian is also a defendant in the case, but he offered himself as a witness against his brother in exchange for immunity. When the Presidential Commission on Good Government did not act on his offer, Tanenglian asked the court three weeks ago to order the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General to resolve the matter.
When the OSG announced more than a week ago it was rejecting Tanenglian’s offer, his lawyer Emilio Quiroz told the Inquirer that Tanenglian would take his appeal to Malacañang.
In his opposition filed with the 5th Division on Wednesday, Tan said the court should deny Tanenglian’s motion and leave the matter to the PCGG and the OSG.
Tan said his brother’s motion was “officious" and constituted "undue interference" in the way the government chose to prosecute its case.
Tan also questioned why Generillo, a former OSG lawyer who was taken off the case, continued to hold on to documents despite the government’s demand that they be returned.
Generillo claimed he had intellectual property rightsover the documents despite a court order to return them to the OSG. He said he was willing to present the documents with Tanenglian’s testimony.
Since Generillo was no longer involved with the prosecution, “the statement is not only officious but a brazen form of "intimidation," Tan said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)