SOS

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

INQUIRER OPINION - COLUMNS

SOS
Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer

April 29, 2011

Rolando C. Gapud
Chairman of the Board
Del Monte Pacific, Ltd.
17 Bukit Pasoh Road
Singapore 089831

DEAR ROLY,

Please forgive the familiarity. To the best of my knowledge I met you only once when you were one of Ting Roxas’ fair-haired boys, and we were introduced because I worked briefly for him as a consultant. But I do know Nenita, a sorority sister from college, and our daughters are friends - so I guess I can claim some relationship by affinity. And of course I am very familiar with your work and your reputation - both of the highest quality.

I am writing this open letter to you because we need your help very badly again. By "we," I mean the Filipino people. By "help" I mean your testimony, or at least your deposition, in connection with Civil Case 005 - People of the Philippines v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos.... LucioTan... etc., a total of 40 corporate defendants and 29 individual defendants - that was filed way back in 1987, and got to the trial stage in early 2006. And the "again" part is because you did execute an eight-page sworn statement, accompanied by two annexes which you yourself typed, on Jan. 14, 1987, which clarified the business and financial relationships between Ferdinand Marcos and his cronies during his dictatorship, and which served as the foundation for Civil Case 005.

Your affidavit ended by saying "...I am prepared to elaborate, if necessary, and execute such document or documents as may be needed to explain such part or parts of this Sworn Statement which may require clarification." You executed another two affidavits in Hong Kong, on the matter, giving more details, and reiterating your willingness to testify.

Why did it take so long for the Filipino people to come to you for help again? Not our fault, I assure you. As you know, the Presidential Commission on Good Government wanted to depose you sometime in 1993, (with oral examination) to be taken in Hong Kong (apparently because there were fears for your life which militated against your coming to the Philippines). But there were objections from some of the defendants, in particular Lucio Tan (please note that none of the Marcoses objected, neither did Cesar Zalamea nor Don Ferry nor the estate/heirs of Gregorio Licaros), and the Sandiganbayan (SB) ruled in their favor.

Why the ruling against taking your deposition? Because, the SB said, the defendants had not yet served their answers. Moreover, you were neither old, nor sick, nor infirm, so there was no urgency, said the SB justices. Of course, the PCGG appealed to the Supreme Court - and it took the Supreme Court eight years (2001) to decide the issue - siding with the SB. One wonders why it took eight years for them to decide. See what the Filipino people have to put up with?

And then, unfortunately, when the last answer from the last defendant was received in 2005, another barrier was raised against getting your deposition as Marcos’ financial consigliere, privy to all the financial machinations of the dictator. This time, even more unfortunately, the barriers did not come from the opposite camp, but from our side - namely the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The powers that be in these agencies just sat on the urgent requests of the government lawyers involved (Catalino Generillo for the PCGG, Mauricia Dinopol for the OSG) to ensure that you would be called to testify, or at least be deposed. Can you imagine, Roly? In 1993, they said that your testimony is "indispensable to establish the intricate unlawful business activities of the Marcoses and their principal business associates or cronies, including Mr. Tan," and yet when there were no more legal barriers to securing your testimony, they then delayed doing it for another five years.

You must know, of course, that former solicitor general and justice secretary Agnes Devanadera even went so far as to object to allowing Mariano Tanenglian, Lucio Tan’s brother and former chief consigliere, to testify against Tan, stating that this would not benefit the government’s case (the PCGG agreed with her!); and that the PCGG, at the behest of Devanadera, who in turn "behested" at the behest of Lucio Tan’s lawyer, fired its own lawyer (Generillo) who was making waves for the prosecution and striking fear in the hearts of the defense. And after having done so, the PCGG publicly announced that it had a weak case against Lucio Tan. The latter, by the way, was photographed sitting beside Devanadera at a testimonial for her in the Department of Justice. How’s that for a cozy relationship?

Now you surely see what the Filipino people have to put up with. And realize how much we need your help.

And the best time to help is now - because now, both the PCGG and the OSG are on the same page as the Filipino people. These two agencies have been showing a lot of spine and teeth, thank heavens. They’re doing things that were unimaginable under the previous administration - like asking for the SB justices to inhibit themselves (showing a pattern of bias), like pursuing once again the possibility of getting Tanenglian as a state witness, and actively trying to secure your testimony. Actually, it seems that the Aquino administration itself is on a mini-roll here. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez has just resigned, and we’ve finally got a credible appointee to the Commission on Elections.

And with you on board, the Filipino people will finally have more than a fighting chance to get back what has been stolen from them. We’re talking about at least P220 billion here.

Please? For Inang Bayan. Sincerely, Winnie.

Get Real, Rays of Light

Get Real
Rays of light
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:21:00 03/25/2011
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice)

THAT FULL-PAGE ad taken out in this newspaper entitled “SO THAT THE PCGG AND OSG (and others) MAY HAVE THE FACTS RIGHT ON WHY THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ON THE LUCIO TAN ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH CASE WAS TERMINATED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN ON APRIL 23,2009” by Estelito P. Mendoza and Associates (lawyers for Lucio Tan) is an indication, from where I sit, that the actions of the new and revitalized Presidential Commission on Good Government may be starting to hit a nerve.

The reader will recall that I wrote last week that the PCGG/OSG had filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for the justices hearing Civil Case 0005 to inhibit themselves because of their “manifest partiality and bias in favor of the powerful interests impleaded in this case (which) glaring inequity substantially eroded the Republic’s faith that this case would be resolved in accordance with law, justice and equity.”

The powerful interests adverted to is, of course, Lucio Tan who has so far managed to win all the cases filed against him, whether it be government agencies (i.e., the BIR) or his labor unions (the flight attendants’ union did win its case against him in the Supreme Court, won in Tan’s first motion for reconsideration, and then lost the second). For that matter, Tan has somehow managed to get his way with Congress as well. And let’s face it, Presidents, too, although so far P-Noy seems to have been able to resist his blandishments (it is my understanding that P-Noy himself refused any campaign contributions from Tan, but it has also been alleged that the latter managed to course it through some members of the Samar group).

It should not escape anyone’s notice that while the title of the ad refers to the April 23, 2009 open-court order of the Sandiganbayan terminating the prosecution’s presentation of testimonial evidence, what it reproduced is the July 20, 2009 Sandiganbayan resolution denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the PCGG/OSG. That is because the April 23 order was an oral one, and it is clear as a bell that it was done in a rush, with only the weakest attempts at justification, because the anti-graft court, presumably at the urging of Mendoza, was trying to stave off the possibility of Mariano Tanenglian (Lucio Tan’s brother) turning state witness. Whether or not a written order followed the oral one, I do not know. But even if there was one, the fact that Mendoza did not use that but preferred to reproduce a resolution handed down three months later is in itself very telling: they needed additional time to marshal the arguments necessary to justify the order of April 23.

Even then, I still am not buying their position. The partiality was manifest, and the explanatory note of Mendoza and Associates gives it away. Notice, dear reader, what Mendoza says: “The termination was not only justified but belated. The case has been pending since July 17, 1987, or now for nearly TWENTY-FOUR YEARS” (emphasis theirs).

And yet, when the Sandiganbayan talks about the “antecedent facts,” it starts with 2005, rather than 1987. And the reason becomes clear, when one sees the timeline (as provided to me generously by Catalino Generillo, who was hired by Haydee Yorac and whose judgment I will take over that of 10 Agnes Devanaderas).

So why did the Sandiganbayan start with 2005? Well because, dear reader, the delay between 1987 and 2005 was due to the collective efforts of the defendants, including Lucio Tan—dilatory tactics, including motions to dismiss, motions for bill of particulars, motions to suspend proceedings (even before the start of the formal trial). For example, it took Lucio Tan almost three years (March 1990) to file his answer to the initial complaint of the PCGG, and would you believe another nine years to answer the PCGG’s amended complaint? On the other hand, of the 17 postponements requested by the government, as cited by the court, only three are fully attributable to the government per the PCGG tally, while the rest were due to valid reasons, i.e., circumstances beyond its control.

Indeed, if the Sandiganbayan had taken cognizance of those defendant-caused delays, rather than just the prosecution-caused delays, there would clearly be no basis whatsoever to chafe at the delays they attribute to the prosecution, much less to terminate arbitrarily (justification three months later, as noted above) its presentation of evidence, in effect denying the latter the opportunity to fully present its case. How’s that for loading the cards against the good guys?

But lo and behold, it seems that some rays of light are appearing in what was heretofore a very dark horizon. The same day that the full-page Mendoza ad appeared in the Inquirer two days ago, the Sandiganbayan granted, in open court, the government’s motion to adduce additional evidence, and gave it an eight-month window to do so, the clock starting immediately.

Did the court change its mind because of the March 15 PCGG/OSG motion for the justices to inhibit themselves? One cannot tell. But in researching for this column, I came upon a report regarding a 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court (with Martin Villarama as ponente) that the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied a PCGG plea to reopen a case for presentation of additional evidence.

The Villarama decision stated that the Sandiganbayan’s refusal would result in “miscarriage of justice”; and that, aside from this, the Sandiganbayan flouted EO 14, Series of 1986 issued by President Cory Aquino (when her word was law) that technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be strictly applied to cases involving ill-gotten wealth.

Cheers.

Statement in Response to the Full-Page Advertisements of Atty. Estelito Mendoza
Posted on April 8, 2011 by The Commission

[Nota bene. The following statement, in response to the full-page advertisements of Atty. Estelito Mendoza, was circulated to certain members of the press. Unfortunately, except for Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod's article (25 March 2011) entitled, Rays of Light, to our knowledge, the following statement was neither covered nor mentioned anywhere else.]

The law firm of Atty. Estelito Mendoza, counsel for Mr. Lucio Tan, took out paid full-page advertisements in The Philippine Star (on 23 March 2011) and Philippine Daily Inquirer (on 24 March 2011), to purportedly explain why the presentation of the Republic’s evidence in the Lucio Tan ill-gotten wealth case was terminated by the Sandiganbayan on April 23, 2009.

The said advertisements were misleading and the facts presented were maliciously slanted to favor Mr. Tan and his co-defendants. It unfairly casts aspersions on both the PCGG and the OSG when both institutions only seek to exhaust all remedies allowed under the Rules of Court to present the government’s case. In taking out the paid advertisements, Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues.

The Delay was Not The Fault of the Republic

The July 20, 2009 Sandiganbayan Order which was printed as part of the paid advertisement lists down 17 instances when the government allegedly sought postponement of hearings. However, a closer reading of the 17 cited instances would show that only 3 are fully attributable to the government (15 February 2007, 11 June 2008 and 15 April 2009).

The rest of the postponements mentioned were due to valid reasons such as the sickness (duly supported by medical certificates) of the government’s counsel or witness, or due to the court process server’s failure to serve subpoena on government-proposed witnesses. Clearly, it is unfair to blame the government for the delay mostly caused by circumstances beyond its control.

Mr. Lucio Tan and his Co-Defendants Caused Delays

The complaint for recovery of ill-gotten wealth against Mr. Tan and his co-conspirators was filed on 17 July 1987. The government began its initial presentation of evidence only on May 24, 2006, more than nineteen (19) years later. The delay of nineteen (19) years from the time of the filing of the complaint to the time that the government started presenting its first witness was caused by collective efforts of Mr. Tan and other defendants.The records show that defendants filed motions to dismiss, motions for bill of particulars and on at least two occasions, Atty. Mendoza filed motions to suspend proceedings even before the start of the formal trial.

Timing and Motivation Behind the Advertisements

The paid full-page advertisements clearly violate the sub judice rule which prohibits parties and counsel from publicly discussing matters that are still being considered by the court. Moreover, it came out just as the government had filed separate motions for inhibition of the Justices of the 5th division of the Sandiganbayan for their manifest bias in favor of the Mr. Tan, and for the government to be allowed to present Mr. Tan’s brother, Mr. Mariano Tanenglian as a witness for the government.

In as much as a trial is intended to be a search for the truth, the government wants to present Mr. Tanenglian as a witness and for the court to hear what he has to say. For one reason or another, the previous PCGG and Solicitor General did not want him to testify for the government. We disagree. Mr. Tanenglian has offered his willingness to testify for the Republic, we believe that the court and the Filipino people should hear what he has to say.

Final statement

It is beyond doubt that the full-page advertisements were precisely timed to influence the court as it evaluates the motion for inhibition and the motion to adduce new evidence which includes the testimony of Mr. Tanenglian. It is clearly part of Mr. Tan’s well-funded and orchestrated effort to prevent Mr. Tanenglian from testifying, clearly driven by fear of the truth that he and his associates have successfully hidden from the public eye for the past 24 years. While we cannot guarantee what exactly Mr. Tanenglian will say, the PCGG will fight for his right to testify and narrate the circumstances as to how Mr. Tan has accumulated his present wealth generated as a result of an unholy and corrupt partnership with former President Marcos to the great prejudice of the Filipino people.

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.

Philip Morris, Fortune Tobacco in 'marriage of equals''

By Ricky Carandang, ABS-CBN News

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/02/25/10/philip-morris-fortune-tobacco-marriage-equals

His brother Harry offered an explanation.

"The problem in any business decision is not 100% purely that you’re looking at the market share, but you’re also looking for other, rofitability and efficiency, the way how management...the way that you carry, you know, the professional management of the company. So the reason we’re entering to this one is surely not just one factor but many other factor that we’re thinking a multiple effect that which would achieve you a lot of cost saving which is a waste, I mean to say this can be, nobody make it just a waste, but because of this synergy, you can save a lot of this thing of the waste," said Harry in the press conference announcing the new joint venture.

But many observers say there's more to this deal than meets the eye. Among the Chinese business elite, there has been consistent talk of Tan's poor health and the problems of succession.

Tan has been involved in a very public dispute with his brother Mariano Taneligan, who until recent years, was his most trusted consiglieri.

Mariano has even threatened to testify against Lucio in the Marcos wealth cases.

Mariano was expected to run the Tan empire until the lines of succession between his numerous children became more clear.

But so far, family disputes have prevented a clear succession. With the succession unclear, and with his health reportedly failing, Tan seems to have opted to gradually sell his tobacco business.

Neither Harry Tan nor Philip Morris's Chris Nelson would address the issue directly.

"It’s not fair to speculate so it’s conceivable. But frankly speaking, we’re not looking at that. What we’re looking at is that they offer, as I said, expertise in the domestic business. I think we bring skill set for international, and we look forward to marrying that together," said Nelson.

But Harry did admit that if they sell out, they would be required to offer their shares in PMFTC to Philip Morris.

"So far, we are happy with what, you know, just like marriage, 50-50. Whatever the property, the earnings. And we’re not even thinking of divorce. Today is just our marriage day. Hopefully you will recommend the question that we are going to divorce – I buy you out or you buy me out," Tan said.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110325-327652/Rays-of-light

Get Real
Rays of light
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 23:21:00 03/25/2011
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice)

THAT FULL-PAGE ad taken out in this newspaper entitled “SO THAT THE PCGG AND OSG (and others) MAY HAVE THE FACTS RIGHT ON WHY THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE ON THE LUCIO TAN ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH CASE WAS TERMINATED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN ON APRIL 23,2009” by Estelito P. Mendoza and Associates (lawyers for Lucio Tan) is an indication, from where I sit, that the actions of the new and revitalized Presidential Commission on Good Government may be starting to hit a nerve.

The reader will recall that I wrote last week that the PCGG/OSG had filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for the justices hearing Civil Case 0005 to inhibit themselves because of their “manifest partiality and bias in favor of the powerful interests impleaded in this case (which) glaring inequity substantially eroded the Republic’s faith that this case would be resolved in accordance with law, justice and equity.”

The powerful interests adverted to is, of course, Lucio Tan who has so far managed to win all the cases filed against him, whether it be government agencies (i.e., the BIR) or his labor unions (the flight attendants’ union did win its case against him in the Supreme Court, won in Tan’s first motion for reconsideration, and then lost the second). For that matter, Tan has somehow managed to get his way with Congress as well. And let’s face it, Presidents, too, although so far P-Noy seems to have been able to resist his blandishments (it is my understanding that P-Noy himself refused any campaign contributions from Tan, but it has also been alleged that the latter managed to course it through some members of the Samar group).

It should not escape anyone’s notice that while the title of the ad refers to the April 23, 2009 open-court order of the Sandiganbayan terminating the prosecution’s presentation of testimonial evidence, what it reproduced is the July 20, 2009 Sandiganbayan resolution denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the PCGG/OSG. That is because the April 23 order was an oral one, and it is clear as a bell that it was done in a rush, with only the weakest attempts at justification, because the anti-graft court, presumably at the urging of Mendoza, was trying to stave off the possibility of Mariano Tanenglian (Lucio Tan’s brother) turning state witness. Whether or not a written order followed the oral one, I do not know. But even if there was one, the fact that Mendoza did not use that but preferred to reproduce a resolution handed down three months later is in itself very telling: they needed additional time to marshal the arguments necessary to justify the order of April 23.

Even then, I still am not buying their position. The partiality was manifest, and the explanatory note of Mendoza and Associates gives it away. Notice, dear reader, what Mendoza says: “The termination was not only justified but belated. The case has been pending since July 17, 1987, or now for nearly TWENTY-FOUR YEARS” (emphasis theirs).

And yet, when the Sandiganbayan talks about the “antecedent facts,” it starts with 2005, rather than 1987. And the reason becomes clear, when one sees the timeline (as provided to me generously by Catalino Generillo, who was hired by Haydee Yorac and whose judgment I will take over that of 10 Agnes Devanaderas).

So why did the Sandiganbayan start with 2005? Well because, dear reader, the delay between 1987 and 2005 was due to the collective efforts of the defendants, including Lucio Tan—dilatory tactics, including motions to dismiss, motions for bill of particulars, motions to suspend proceedings (even before the start of the formal trial). For example, it took Lucio Tan almost three years (March 1990) to file his answer to the initial complaint of the PCGG, and would you believe another nine years to answer the PCGG’s amended complaint? On the other hand, of the 17 postponements requested by the government, as cited by the court, only three are fully attributable to the government per the PCGG tally, while the rest were due to valid reasons, i.e., circumstances beyond its control.

Indeed, if the Sandiganbayan had taken cognizance of those defendant-caused delays, rather than just the prosecution-caused delays, there would clearly be no basis whatsoever to chafe at the delays they attribute to the prosecution, much less to terminate arbitrarily (justification three months later, as noted above) its presentation of evidence, in effect denying the latter the opportunity to fully present its case. How’s that for loading the cards against the good guys?

But lo and behold, it seems that some rays of light are appearing in what was heretofore a very dark horizon. The same day that the full-page Mendoza ad appeared in the Inquirer two days ago, the Sandiganbayan granted, in open court, the government’s motion to adduce additional evidence, and gave it an eight-month window to do so, the clock starting immediately.

Did the court change its mind because of the March 15 PCGG/OSG motion for the justices to inhibit themselves? One cannot tell. But in researching for this column, I came upon a report regarding a 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court (with Martin Villarama as ponente) that the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied a PCGG plea to reopen a case for presentation of additional evidence.

The Villarama decision stated that the Sandiganbayan’s refusal would result in “miscarriage of justice”; and that, aside from this, the Sandiganbayan flouted EO 14, Series of 1986 issued by President Cory Aquino (when her word was law) that technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be strictly applied to cases involving ill-gotten wealth.

This news report is a stark contrast to the deafening silence of media regarding the probe initiated by House Resolution No. 1559. Sponsored a year ago by cause-oriented representatives from various party-list sectors, House Resolution No. ...1559 reads:

Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
Third Regular Session

HOUSE RESOLUTION No. 1559 (filed January 18, 2010)

Introduced by Bayan Muna Rep. Satur C. Ocampo, Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Liza L. Maza, Anakpawis Rep. Rafael V. Mariano, Kabataan Rep. Raymond V. Palatino, Bayan Muna Rep. Teodoro A. Casiño, Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Luzviminda C. Ilagan, Anakpawis Rep. Joel B. Maglunsod, and Bayan Muna Rep. Neri J. Colmenares

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY TO CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE INQUIRY ON THE SPECIFIC MEASURES, AND INADEQUACIES THEREOF, TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF ILOCOS SUR IN RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGED TAX EVASION AND FOUL PRACTICES OF MULTI-BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN LUCIO TAN AS EXPOSED BY WHISTLEBLOWER ELPIDIO QUE

Whereas, a concerned citizen named Elpidio Que, who is a resident of Vigan, Ilocos Sur and a former regional sales manager of one of the companies owned by businessman Lucio Tan, has repeatedly called the attention of the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Office of the Ombudsman, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), the local government of Ilocos Sur, members of the press and members of Congress, among others, to the allegedly atrocious tax evasion schemes, amounting to hundreds of billions of pesos, and other foul business practices allegedly committed by Tan;

Whereas, Que also reported to the said bodies certain instances wherein he observed key government officials acting inappropriately or not responding at all to his complaints;

Whereas, Que claims to have personal knowledge, documentary proof, as well as several colleagues who are likewise willing to testify under oath, revealing details of the tax evasion and foul practices allegedly committed by Tan;

Whereas, Solita Collas-Monsod, former Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), has rigorously tackled in her columns in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and BusinessWorld Que's exposes, the intricate details surrounding Sandiganbayan Case No. 0005 or the government's case against Lucio Tan and the estate of Ferdinand Marcos, and the apparent hesitation of government agencies such as the PCGG, the Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman and the DoJ to win the said case by rejecting a possible state witness, among many other instances of incompetence, plain inaction or even treason;

Whereas, Sandiganbayan Case No. 0005 involves the alleged illicit business relationship exclusively entered into by Ferdinand Marcos and Lucio Tan and involves an estimated P220 billion to P330 billion of assets which, in principle, now belongs to the government and the Filipino people;

Whereas, the offer of Mariano Tanenglian, Lucio Tan's younger brother, alleged right hand man for over 40 years and treasurer of Tan's corporations, to serve as state witness in exchange for criminal and civil immunity has been mysteriously rejected by the DoJ, OSG, and PCGG thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the said government bodies;

Whereas, Catalino Generillo, former PCGG lawyer who has documentary evidence and expertise on Sandiganbayan Case No. 0005, appears to have been wrongfully removed from the case due to his diligent performance of his duties;

Whereas, the Bureau of Internal Revenue appears to have failed in its role of collecting taxes and going after tax evaders, in this case, as alleged by Que, the biggest fish of all;

Whereas, in a time of worsening economic crisis, the said billions of pesos worth of assets, if indeed it belongs to government, must be recovered and allocated generously to provide for the Filipino people's basic needs and build the foundations for the country's genuine development;

Whereas, the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability has jurisdiction over "all matters directly and principally relating to malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office committed by officers and employees of the government and its political subdivisions and instrumentalities inclusive of investigations of any matter of public interest on its own initiative or upon order of the House";

Now therefore, be it resolved, as it is hereby resolved, that the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability conduct an immediate inquiry on the specific measures, and inadequacies thereof, taken by the Department of Justice, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the local government of Ilocos Sur in response to the alleged tax evasion and foul practices of multi-billionaire businessman Lucio Tan as exposed by whistleblower Elpidio Que.

TO PARAPHRASE CHARLES LAMB, MONEY TALKS, BIG MONEY DOESN'T - IT HIRES A STAFF OF PR MEN.

QUO VADIS PINOY!

Allied Bank security chief insists top management banned Tan brother from entering family owned building

By KRIS BAYOS
March 19, 2009, 5:02pm

It was the top management of Lucio Tan’s bank in Makati City that has officially banned his younger brother from entering the family-owned corporation since January.

This is what Allied Banking Corporation’s security chief Christopher Dobles disclosed yesterday as he submitted his five-page counter affidavit to refute the charges of grave coercion filed against him and six security guards by Mariano Tanenglian.

Saying there is no basis for Tanenglian’s complaint, Dobles maintained that he is in no position to question the debarment instruction of the top management he received "sometime in January 2009."

"I did not find anything wrong with the instruction given to me. After all, the top management may very well bar any individual from entering the private premises of the bank. As an officer, I have no right to question who are being allowed entry into the center. I have no discretion to choose who should be granted access," Dobles said.

He, however, failed to name the top executives who ordered Tanenglian’s debarment or even produce the memorandum pertaining to the instruction.

Tanenglian’s complaint came after he was allegedly "forced, threatened and intimidated from entering" the car park of Allied Banking Corporation at the corner of Dela Rosa and Gallardo streets in Legaspi Village last February 4.

Despite being a stockholder, treasurer and member of the board of directors of the corporation since 1977, Tanenglian, then aboard a white Mercedes Benz (XPT 868), was blocked by allegedly heavily armed security guards who raised their firearms in a threatening and intimidating manner "as if they would not hesitate to use their firearms if we would proceed.

Pamusa’s Case vs. Lucio Tan

http://globalbalita.com/2009/pamusas-case-vs-lucio-tan

This column’s readers know the Philippine Anticorruption Movement USA, Inc. (Pamusa) is authorized by the USDOJ to participate in fighting corruption and kleptocracy in support of the enforcement of UNCAC by U.S. laws which has been reinforced by the recent G20 London Summit ending bank secrecy for tax evasion investigation.

Pamusa’s lawyers have gathered sufficient evidence to charge Filipino big fishes starting with Lucio Tan in the United States for corruption, mail or wire fraud, money laundering and racketeering (violation of RICO). Moreover, Tan’s and family members’ U.S. businesses have put themselves under U.S. jurisdiction for violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Anti-Trust Laws. For instance, a Tan-owned company and Boeing have conspired in the procurement and leasing of planes including spare parts and support services for Philippine Airlines at questionable transfer pricing that make Tan and family members probably guilty for violating the FCPA and detrimental to American stockholders of PAL’s holding company, Baguio Gold Holdings Corporation.

Pamusa has submitted its evidence to the FBI to investigate Tan. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo could add the government evidence in various cases against Tan which he has danced around for too long. GMA may also prove the seriousness of her anti-graft and corruption program, thus save her presidency from infamy and enshrine a legacy of reforms for our people to perhaps pardon her alleged malfeasances.

We’re also hoping the Moral Force Movement (MFM) would use this case as a launching pad for its mission to combat widespread corruption which is the primary cause of poverty and its debilitating effects. MFM may reinforce Pamusa’s evidence against Tan and build on the credibility of targeting one of the country’s biggest fishes. Tan’s case would reverberate across the nation to warn all involved in graft and corruption to cease and desist in their nefarious activities or be subjected to international condemnation.

Tan and other big fishes have gotten used to being untouchable under Philippine laws. They overlook that the USDOJ has laid the basis for criminal action and forfeiture of assets acquired from “a process or series of actions through which income of illegal origin is concealed, disguised, or made to appear legitimate (main objective); and to evade detection, prosecution, seizure, and taxation.”

By inventorying from dates of organization Tan’s group of companies starting with Fortune Tobacco’s annual reports, income tax declarations, and their personal statements of assets, liabilities and net worth would show the growth of each company’s assets vis-à-vis Tan’s personal net worth of $1.4 billion as of 2008 according to Forbes has been statistically improbable unless the companies resorted to massive tax evasion, bureaucratic corruption and be almost free from competition because of government favors from Marcos and succeeding administrations.

Tan’s and his group of companies’ alleged massive tax evasion was brought to light under President Ramos. Sufficient evidence of corruption and other crimes punishable under U.S. laws can be adduced by the FBI and conclude that much of the companies’ income came from illegal origin. Tan, the companies’ boards of directors and executive officers have evidently engaged in corruption by paying, or promising to pay, bribes, or by giving other undue advantages to public officials and their accomplices which they cannot deny when questioned by the FBI or be guilty of perjury.

In fairness to Tan, however, he took advantage of the country’s corrupt environment as others have similarly done. He can’t be punished to the exclusion of those equally guilty such as Danding Cojuangco, Henry Sy, Roberto Ongpin and others. They should emulate the Union Bank of Switzerland and Siemens AG and negotiate with the FBI Los Angeles office and USDOJ before they’re charged in court.

They may return to RP government Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth and accruals kept by them including ill-gotten gains from corruption during succeeding administrations. These can be reasonably accounted for and perhaps converted into preferred shares of their companies so they continue management control while freeing themselves, their heirs and successors from criminal and civil liabilities.

It’s a fact that when amicable settlement is approved by a U.S. court, the records are shielded from the public and can’t be used for any other legal action. It’s impossible to convict someone for graft and corruption or plunder in the Philippines after the evidence is sealed by a U.S. court.

Tan’s incredible story started with the family-owned Fortune Tobacco. To his credit, Tan was chosen by Marcos to be one of his cronies granted government favors that led to his building a business empire including Asia Brewery (which would not have been possible had Marcos known San Miguel Corp. would one day be under Danding Cojuangco), Allied Banking Corporation, Foremost Farms, Eton Properties, Himmel Industries, Tanduay Distillers and other subsidiaries.

Tan can’t deny he and other cronies were required by Marcos to cede 60% of the equity of each company granted favors such as unlimited dollars for imported needs, PNB and DBP loans, no bureaucratic meddling that allowed Fortune Tobacco to allegedly print multiple same-numbered revenue stamps to minimize tax on cigarettes, etc.

Tan added PAL and Philippine National Bank obviously from the income of the earlier companies. By monopolizing inter-company businesses with Tan-owned firms such as exclusive caterer for PAL passengers, conduit in purchasing and leasing planes including parts and services for PAL, banking transactions confined to PNB, its foreign subsidiaries and Oceanic Bank in which Allied Bank has significant stake, Tan with the board of directors and executive officers of the companies involved have crossed the line of U.S. legal business practices.

Tan’s net worth of $1.4 billion makes him the second richest Filipino with likely investments in China which may have exposed him to the latter’s anticorruption laws which can be pursued by USDOJ that could lead to far worse retribution.

Lucio Tan, Corrupt Practices in the U.S.

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.

Lucio Tan questions OSG, PCGG stand on bank case

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/02/07/11/lucio-tan-questions-osg-pcgg-stand-bank-case

Lucio Tan questions OSG, PCGG stand on bank case

MANILA, Philippines - Businessman Lucio Tan has questioned the failure of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to pose objections to a motion for intervention filed by a group of people claiming to be stockholders of the former General Bank and Trust Company (Genbank) in relation to Civil Case No. 0005.

In a 10-page manifestation filed through lawyers Estelito Mendoza and Orlando Santiago, Tan said Aderito Yujuico, Martina Gutierrez, Augusto Carpio, Ma. Trinidad Kalaw, Zenaida Santiago, Lourdes Yujuico, and Rosa Caram are claiming ownership of "shares of stocks and/or beneficial interests over Allied Banking Corp."

The Genbank group’s motion seeks return of these shares of stocks that the government is also claiming for itself in the case.

Catalino Generillo, a former special counsel for the PCGG who now representing Aderito Yujuico et al., said the disputed Allied Bank shares were already worth P688,201,301.00 back in March 29, 1977.

"They [OSG and PCGG] ... have apparently overlooked that the plaintiff in the instant case is the Republic of the Philippines which they are representing. The properties sought to be reconveyed to the Republic... include shares of stock in Allied Bank of defendants Lucio Tan et al," Tan said.

He added that the OSG and PCGG move is tantamount to abandonment of their mandates under the law.

"In implicitly agreeing that the shares of stock in Allied Bank alleged to be ‘ill-gotten wealth’ should be conveyed to Aderito Yujuico et al., and not to the Republic of the Philippines, the PCGG violates its mandate under Executive Order No. 1, while the Office of the Solicitor General, in so agreeing violates its basic responsibility as the lawyer of the Government," he added.

Mendoza and Santiago argued that in 2006, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court had already rejected a lawsuit filed by stockholders of Genbank against the Central Bank involving the same Allied Bank assets.

Tan claimed that it was not the first time that PCGG and OSG "strayed from their responsibility."

He said that in 2008, Generillo then representing PCGG, even went to the United States on government funds to obtain documents in support of the claim of the Marcos family that they own 60% of Tan’s assets.

"In doing so, the PCGG and the OSG were clearly no longer asking that the shares of stock of Lucio C. Tan be reconveyed to the Republic of the Philippines but that 60 percent thereof belongs to the estate of former President Ferdinand Marcos," he said.

Lucio Tan’s brother loses P51-B ill-gotten wealth case

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/212192/lucio-tans-brother-waives-right-to-present-evidence-in-wealth-case

Lucio Tan’s brother loses P51-B ill-gotten wealth case

The Sandiganbayan on Thursday rendered a "judgment in default" against businessman Lucio Tan's brother - Mariano Tanenglian - for failing to present evidence in his defense in a forfeiture case that had dragged for 23 years.

Sandiganbayan Fifth Division said Thursday Tanenglian is "deemed to have waived his right" to present any evidence in his own defense in the P51-billion ill-gotten wealth case.

The division chair, Associate Justice Roland Jurado, refused to allow Tanenglian's request for another extension to submit his defense evidence.

Jurado explained that the defendant had been repeatedly reminded that he cannot stall the proceedings since other defendants in the case were already done presenting their evidence.

Tanenglian had asked the court to defer his presentation of evidence while waiting for the Presidential Commission on Good Government's decision on his petition for immunity in exchange for testifying against Tan.

The government is seeking to prove that Tan's assets form part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family, the heirs of the late President Ferdinand Marcos.

Marcos and Tan were supposedly partners in business ventures that Tan successfully grew into multibillion-peso enterprises today.

Tan continues to deny the allegation, while the Marcoses are trying to get what they claim is their share of the enterprises. The government, on the other hand, wants to seize all the assets.

Tanenglian is also a defendant in the case against his brother but after they had a falling-out he offered to turn state's evidence in exchange for immunity.

Estelito Mendoza, Tan's counsel, said that it would be unfair for Tan and the rest of the defendants if more delays are allowed in the proceedings.

Apart from Tan and Tanenglian, also named defendants were the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and former First Lady Imelda Marcos. - JE/MRT/VS, GMANews.TV

Succession Issues

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.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/01/13/11/philippine-airlines-sale

---

TAN HAS HAD DISPUTES WITH HIS MOST TRUSTED BROTHER AND BUSINESS PARTNER, MR. MARIANO TANENGLIAN

---

Is Philippine Airlines for sale?
By Lala Rimando, abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 01/13/2011 9:05 PM Updated as of 01/13/2011 11:52 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."

For months on end, speculation has been rife that the 70-year-old airline is on the selling block after it encountered massive losses of US$312.1-million from 2008 to 2010 largely due to previous spikes in fuel prices, which account for bulk of its operating expenses.

It has also been unable to deploy its new aircrafts to profitable routes, such as the US and Europe, due to the inclusion of the Philippines in the safety blacklists of these destinations' respective aviation bodies.

To cope, PAL rolled out cost-cutting measures that involved outsourcing non-core operations, reducing benefits and adjusting retirement age.

These resulted in almost year-long battles with its labor unions.

The cost-cutting measures remain on hold as PAL continues to assert itself in separate labor cases with the ground crew and flight attendants unions.

---

In 2009, a business leader predicted that there is NO Lucio Tan Group of Companies without Mariano Tanenglian.

1977 bank case haunts Lucio Tan, Marcoses

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNation.htm?f=2011/january/8/nation4.isx&d=2011/january/8

1977 bank case haunts Lucio Tan, Marcoses
by Macon Araneta

THE Sandiganbayan on Friday ordered taipan Lucio Tan, his brother Mariano Tanenglian and the estate of the late president Ferdinand Marcos to comment on the motion of the stockholders of the General Bank and Trust Company, now Allied Bank, which sought to transfer to them their shares of stocks or beneficial interest over Allied Bank.

The complaint-in-intervention, filed last December 10 by General Bank stockholders through their counsel Catalino Generillo, also asked the graft court’s fifth division for an alternative, and that is to order Allied Bank to pay them an amount equivalent to the value of the total assets of General Bank worth P688.20 million as of March 29, 1977.

The stockholders are Aderito Yuyuico, Martina Gutierrez, Augusto Carpio, Ma. Trinidad Kalaw, Zenaida Santiago, Lourdes Yujuico and Rosa Caram. They said that in 1977, Tan in connivance with the late president and Mrs. Marcos, former Central Bank Gov. Gregorio Licaros and Panfilo Domingo of PNB, fraudulently acquired control of General Bank, which eventually became Allied Bank.

The fifth division, chaired by Associate Justice Roland Jurado, gave Tan five days from January 7 to file his comment.

Only Tan’s counsel, Orlando Santiago, the partner of lawyer Estelito Mendoza, appeared during the hearing.

The other defendants, former first lady now Rep. Imelda Marcos, Senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Irene Marcos-Araneta, were directed to file their comment five days upon receipt of the anti-graft court’s order.

The Marcoses’ lawyer Robert Sison failed to attend the hearing as he was recovering from dengue.

Tanenglian’s counsel Raymundo Quiroz, said he had a prior commitment.

Since it was only Generillo and Santiago who were present in court, Jurado opted to issue an order.

Also named as defendants in the six-page complaint-in-intervention are the heirs of former PNB president Panfilo O. Domingo, estate/heirs of former Central Bank Gov. Gregorio Licaros, Carmen Khao Tan, Florencio T. Santos, Natividad P. Santos, Domingo Chua, Tan Hui Nee, estate of Benito Tan Kee Hiong (represented by Tarciana C. Tan), Florencio N. Santos, Jr., Harry C. Tan, Tan Eng Chan, Chung Poe Kee, Mariano Khoo, Manuel Khoo, Miguel Khoo, Jaime Khoo, Elizabeth Khoo, Celso C. Ranola, William T. Wong, Ernesto B. Lim, Willy Co, Shareholdings, Inc. and Basic Holding Corp.

Asked on the apparent delay in the filing of the intervention, Generillo told MST that under the law, intervention may be filed at any time before the court passes judgment on the case.

But he added that no action was taken by the plaintiffs-intervenors in the past years because they thought the former Presidential Commission on Good Government would block the intervention.

Generillo told the court that as stockholders of General Bank, the plaintiff-intervenors have an interest in the subject matter of the case.

"Only through intervention could they protect and enforce their right," said Generillo as he stated that Aderito Yujuico was authorized by the other plaintiffs-intervenors to file the intervention based on a Special Power of Attorney.

Generillo asserted that the claim of the plaintiff-intervenors over Allied Bank as successor of GBTC and/or the assets of Allied Bank is based on constructive trust, which is the appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment.

He explained that constructive trust is raised by equity in respect of property, which has been acquired by fraud, or where, although acquired originally without fraud, it is against equity that it should be retained by a person holding it.

DOLE RESOLVES PAL-FASAP DISPUTE

DOLE RESOLVES PAL-FASAP DISPUTE:

FASAP WINS LABOR DISPUTE AGAINST PAL

FASAP and its 1600 members won its labor dispute against PAL today.

The flight attendants of PAL will indeed have a very Merry Christmas after Department of Labor and Employment Secretary Rosalinda D. Baldoz ruled in its favor to correct the discriminatory compulsory retirement age from 55, 45 and 40 years old to 60 years old, for both male and female flight attendants.

In her Order dated December 24, 2010, Secretary Baldoz said, "The different retirement ages for flight attendants performing the same services constitute a clear discrimination of their right to equal work opportunity."

The DOLE Order further declared, "It is in this light that setting the compulsory retirement age of sixty (60) years - both for male and female cabin crew personnel - is fair and reasonable."

The retirement age of flight attendants is the most contentious issue between PAL and FASAP. The FASAP president Bob Anduiza rallied its flight attendants and led them to fight the discrimination issue of the CBA dispute this year after efforts to forge an amicable contract ended in a deadlock on the issue of age and gender discrimination.

"As union leaders, we owe it to our members and to other female workers in the country to stand up against discrimination in the Philippine workplace. If we cannot have equality in the PAL workplace, then it would be doubly difficult for other Filipino workers to assert their rights."

After learning of the DOLE decision, Anduiza was thankful and said, " We are elated with the decision of Secretary Baldoz, upholding equality for the PAL flight attendants. She deserves praise and respect for her display of fairness and resolve despite the reputed power and influence of PAL." Anduiza added.

In the said Order, Sec. Baldoz argued, "The set up under the old CBA is that female attendants are forced to retire at age 55, while their male counterparts may serve until age 60, for cabin attendants hired before 22 November 1996. Hereon, all cabin attendants hired thereafter, regardless of gender, shall be forced to retire at age 45; while, those hired after 22 November 2000 shall retire at the much early age of 40. Indeed, this structure appears to be discriminatory which may not only be in the context of gender but also as in terms of equal work opportunity as guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Labor Code and its Implementing Rules."

A gentleman's delights ... Afternoon Delights

A gentleman's delights ... Afternoon Delights

Lucio lives by the saying of Chinese philosopher Mencius: "A gentleman delights in three things, and to rule the world is not one of these three things. For one's parents to be both alive, and for one's brothers to have no misfortune, that is the first delight. To look up and see Heaven without shame, that is the second delight. To obtain the world's talented people and educate them, that is the third delight."

Who is Lucio Tan? He was born on July 17, 1934 in Amoy, Fujian Province in what is now the People's Republic of China. Dr. Lu Kun Chen, two years older than he, remembers him from the boat ride that brought the two of them to the Philippines as children. Three high school friends - Tina Enriquez, Larry Uy and Robin Sy - contributed to the book.

DOLE RESOLVES PAL-FASAP DISPUTE: FASAP WINS LABOR DISPUTE AGAINST PAL

DOLE RESOLVES PAL-FASAP DISPUTE: FASAP WINS LABOR DISPUTE AGAINST PAL

FASAP and its 1600 members won its labor dispute against PAL today.

The flight attendants of PAL will indeed have a very Merry Christmas after Department of Labor and Employment Secretary Rosalinda D. Baldoz ruled in its favor to correct the discriminatory compulsory retirement age from 55, 45 and 40 years old to 60 years old, for both male and female flight attendants.

In her Order dated December 24, 2010, Secretary Baldoz said, "The different retirement ages for flight attendants performing the same services constitute a clear discrimination of their right to equal work opportunity."

The DOLE Order further declared, "It is in this light that setting the compulsory retirement age of sixty (60) years - both for male and female cabin crew personnel - is fair and reasonable."

The retirement age of flight attendants is the most contentious issue between PAL and FASAP. The FASAP president Bob Anduiza rallied its flight attendants and led them to fight the discrimination issue of the CBA dispute this year after efforts to forge an amicable contract ended in a deadlock on the issue of age and gender discrimination.

"As union leaders, we owe it to our members and to other female workers in the country to stand up against discrimination in the Philippine workplace. If we cannot have equality in the PAL workplace, then it would be doubly difficult for other Filipino workers to assert their rights."

After learning of the DOLE decision, Anduiza was thankful and said, " We are elated with the decision of Secretary Baldoz, upholding equality for the PAL flight attendants. She deserves praise and respect for her display of fairness and resolve despite the reputed power and influence of PAL." Anduiza added.

In the said Order, Sec. Baldoz argued, "The set up under the old CBA is that female attendants are forced to retire at age 55, while their male counterparts may serve until age 60, for cabin attendants hired before 22 November 1996. Hereon, all cabin attendants hired thereafter, regardless of gender, shall be forced to retire at age 45; while, those hired after 22 November 2000 shall retire at the much early age of 40. Indeed, this structure appears to be discriminatory which may not only be in the context of gender but also as in terms of equal work opportunity as guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Labor Code and its Implementing Rules."

FASAP was also able to support its position on the economic aspect of the dispute, citing PAL’s most recent financial statements showing the Company’s recent financial recovery and profitability. PAL’s offer of 105 Million pesos was increased by the DOLE to around 200 million, after it ruled to grant reasonable wage increases, as follows:

"Under the circumstances, we find the following wage increases and augmentation in rice allowance fair and reasonable and, therefore, awards the same to FASAP:

Wage increases

Sandiganbayan junks case against former DBP execs

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/209172/sandiganbayan-junks-case-against-former-dbp-execs

Sandiganbayan junks case against former DBP execs
Article posted December 26, 2010 - 09:31 PM

The Sandiganbayan Fifth Division cleared two former top officials of the Development Bank of the Philippines of any liability in a P51 billion civil lawsuit filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government 23 years ago.

In a 14-page resolution issued Dec. 22, the anti-graft court junked the government case against former DBP Board chairman Cesar Zalamea and former vice chairman Don Ferry.

The two were accused of approving the allegedly anomalous sale of DBP’s stake in Century Park Sheraton Hotel to Sipalay Trading Corp. for P150 million despite its supposed book value of P340 .7 million on Apr. 22, 1985.

DBP held its stake in Century Park through a 79 percent holding in Maranaw Hotel and Resorts Corp.

Government lawyers claimed Sipalay Trading was a ‘dummy’ company formed in 1984 by the late President Ferdinand Marcos and businessman Lucio Tan with a capitalization of only P900,000.

But the Sandiganbayan pointed out that not one of the witnesses presented by the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General was able to link either Zalamea or Ferry to any of the properties being claimed by the government as part of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the defendants.

"No evidence presented by the plaintiff shows that defendants Zalamea and Ferry had any participation in the acquisition of the assets," the court said.

Even Senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., testifying for the government on February 2008, admitted on the witness stand that "Zalamea had nothing to do with any of the transactions." - MRT/KBK, GMANews.TV

Tan in-law backs out from US bank deal

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2010/december/24/news2.isx&d=2010/december/24

Tan in-law backs out from US bank deal

ALLIED BANK on Thursday announced that its planned merger with Philippine National Bank, both controlled by taipan Lucio Tan, had been put on hold after the buyer of an Allied Bank subsidiary in the United States backed out.

The buyer happens to be related by affinity to the Tan family, John K.C. Ng, whose daughter, Angie, is married to Michael Tan, a son of the taipan.

Allied Bank said Ng withdrew his offer to buy the 27.78 percent share of Allied Bank in Oceanic Bank, which has two branches in San Francisco and one in Guam.

"Mr. Ng would rather pursue other business opportunities instead of waiting for approval from the US regulators," Allied Bank said.

Ng, whose family owns Cathay Land, has yet to obtain approval from the US Federal Reserve to acquire voting shares of Oceanic Holding, which is based in Tortola, British Virgin Islands, and thereby indirectly acquire the voting shares of Oceanic Bank Holdings Inc. and Oceanic Bank of San Francisco.

Allied Bank needed to sell its equity in Oceanic Bank to secure approval of the merger with PNB.

The divestment of Allied Bank from Oceanic Bank was needed for the merger between Allied Bank and PNB, since US banking regulations on the entry of new foreign banks would be applied to PNB when it assumes ownership of Oceanic Bank by virtue of its merger with Allied Bank.

Allied Bank said it was now looking at other options "together with its US legal counsels and in consultation with the US regulators."

"The merger with PNB will still be pursued and the integration will continue with a view to improving revenue opportunities and operational efficiencies for both banks," Allied Bank said.

Lucio Tan’s brother loses plea to turn state witness

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2010/december/24/news1.isx&d=2010/december/24

Lucio Tan’s brother loses plea to turn state witness
by Macon Ramos-Araneta

THE Sandiganbayan on Thursday barred the estranged brother of taipan Lucio Tan, Mariano Tanenglian, from offering himself as a government witness against his sibling on the alleged ill-gotten origins of the billionaire’s tobacco, alcohol and banking empire.

The anti-graft court’s Fifth Division ruled that it could not allow Tanenglian, a principal defendant along with Tan, to turn state witness because the Presidential Commission on Good Government had terminated its presentation of evidence in April 2009.

Moreover, the government panel, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, had already rested its case by filling a formal offer of exhibits in October 2009, which effectively prevented the plaintiff, in this case the government, from calling a new witness for the civil complaint, listed as Civil Case No. 0005.

The government is seeking to forfeit Tan’s assets in several companies including Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery Inc., Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries Inc., Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings Inc., and Dominium Realty and Construction Corp and Shareholdings Inc., claiming that those assets were actually owned by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos and his heirs.

"It is apparent that if granted immunity, defendant Tanenglian will give testimony or evidence not in support of the defenses he pleaded in his answer but in support of the complaint," the Sandiganbayan said.

"This court has repeatedly denied motions to reopen proceedings for the purpose of presenting evidence for the plaintiff [Republic of the Philippines]."

In his motion, Tanenglian claimed that the Dec. 2, 2010 deadline set by the Sandiganbayan to complete his presentation was unreasonable as it only gave him 17 days, when the government had more than two decades to present its case.

On the contrary, the Sandiganbayan said, all defendants were notified to prepare their presentation from Nov. 5, 2005, when it issued the pre-trial order setting the trial dates.

Still, "in the interest of justice," the Fifth Division agreed to grant Tanenglian up to February 3, 2011 to present his testimony even with the absence of immunity.

Tanenglian’s application for immunity was turned down by both the PCGG and then Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, who were wary of Tanenglian’s "obscure motives" as the offer of cooperation offer came 20 years after the filing of the case and only after his much-publicized falling-out with Tan.

Devanadera also said Tanenglian held high positions in Tan’s companies and was a key defendant in the case.