Month: October 2007

The President

The Money: Bank of Commerce: follow the money

The ANC (ABS-CBN) cameraman assigned to Karen Davila yesterday morning (the credits don’t show the names of cameramen, please acknowledge him, thanks) in Pampanga zoomed in on the bundle of money that Gov. Ed Panlilio was holding up to the reporters. Brilliant.

The “binding paper” or piece of paper wound around the P500,000.oo bound by two rubber bands, showed the logo, seal, and name of:

BANK OF COMMERCE.

commerce.jpg

(Bank of Commerce photo with Bank of Commerce logo, right-clicked from their website at bancommerce.com)

I checked the website of Bank of Commerce, at bancommerce.com

The following is the ownership profile:

Beneficiaries Accounts – 27.16%

Cojuangco Group – 17.19%

Bancholders — 15.25%

Professional Bankers – 8.27

Equitable Bank Group — 6.43%

Herrera Group — 24.26%

It has 112 branches and 62 onsite/offsite ATM’s. Now, if you were withdrawing a lot of cash and bringing them to Malacañang, you wouldn’t want to go to the out-of-town branches.

The following are the branches in the Manila area:

1.UN Avenue;

2. Tutuban;

3. T. Alonzo;

4. Aduana;

5. Taft-P.Faura;

6. Taft Ave.

7. Sta. Ana;

8. Central market;

9. Soler; 10. Port Area;

11. Juan Luna;

12. Ermita;

13. Elcano;

14. Dasmariñas-Binondo.

According to their website, their brief history is as follows (I just copied and pasted selections):

Quote “1991 – The Bank’s shareholder base include industry leaders in diverse fields. The PLDT/PILTEL Group, the Professional Bankers’ Group, the College Assurance Plan Group, and the Equitable Banking Corporation, give the Bank renewed energy and reach, giving it an edge of confidence in a competitive banking industry. In November of that year, the Securities and Exchange Commission, with the sanction of the Central Bank of the Philippines, approved the change in the corporate name to Bank of Commerce.

Quote “1993 – The present owners completed the buy-out of the majority interest of the First National Bank of Boston.

Quote “2000 – On Sept. 1, 2000, the Bank acquired Panasia Bank, a relatively – new bank owned by the Tan Yu family. From 42 branches all over the country, Bank of Commerce now reaches 55.

Quote “2001 – On November 2001, Bank of Commerce completed its purchase of selected assets and assumption of selected liabilities of Traders Royal Bank (TRB) paving the way for the takeover of all the branches of TRB, thereby expanding its branch network to 112.

Quote “2004 – The Monetary Board, PDIC and the SEC, have given the go-signal for Systems Technology Institute (STI) to acquire a stake in Bank of Commerce. STI gained entry into the Bank’s Board at the annual stockholders’ meeting in April highlighted by the election of directors representing STI.” Unquote.

(By the way, on the bundle of money given to Gov. Jonjon Mendoza, there’s a stamped date, it says “July 2, 2007”, but I didn’t see the name of the bank).

I’m not a full-time blogger or a full-time investigator; I just blog after office hours or after my work is done, and only for two hours. But I hope somebody follows this through.

The news items and interviews on this story are long on opinion and short on information. I really hope somebody follows this through.

I know. There’s a Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act. There are exceptions to that: In case of an impeachment, in case of a court order in a bribery case or dereliction of duty of public officials, or where the money is subject of litigation.

Here’s the provision:

“Republic Act 1405. xxx Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”

If we were in an impeachment trial, we could do more.

If you were an enterprising journalist, you could do a lot, lot better with these tips (and everybody saw these, it’s on TV.)

Criminal law, The President

Salvation: Gov. Ed Panlilio and Gov. Jonjon Mendoza

weyden64.jpg

Rogier van der Weyden. “St. George and the Dragon”. c. 1432. Oil on wood. The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA. Right-clicked from abcgallery.com

Don’t return the money yet. Pampanga governor Ed Panlilio should not return the money (the P500,000.oo) or spend it, it is evidence. He should mark it, document the serial numbers for future use as evidence.

Now that Bulacan governor Jonjon Mendoza has also confirmed an hour ago that he too was given a bag of money (also P500,000.oo), if it is possible, he might be prevailed upon too, to hold on to the money for future use as evidence. They will not have any criminal liability (or any liability springing from any criminal act) since they voluntarily gave the information and if they could be prevailed upon to testify. As everyone knows, there is a law exempting from criminal liability those who give information on acts that may constitute corrupt practices.

Under PD 749, any person who voluntarily gives information on acts that constitute corrupt practices and other forms of dishonesty on the part of public officials and who willingly testifies, shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment with regard to such offense (and this applies to bribe-givers as well). The PD is entitled “Granting immunity to givers of bribes xxx and their accomplices” applies also to those who received money that may have been given to them as corrupt practice (“accomplices”, witting or unwitting. ) Here are the provisions:

“Presidential Decree 749. xxxSection 1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Articles 210, 211, and 212 of the Revised Penal Code; Republic Act Numbered Three Thousand Nineteen, as amended; Section 345 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code and other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse; and who willingly testifies against any public official or employee for such violation shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his information and testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided; that this immunity may be enjoyed even in cases where the information and testimony are given against a person who is not a public official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or accessory in the commission of any of the above-mentioned violations: Provided, further, that this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness notwithstanding that he offered or gave the bribe or gift to the public official or his accomplice for such gift or bribe-giving; and Provided, finally, that the following conditions concur:

“1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and regulations;

“2. The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public officer;

“3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;

“4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points; and

“5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. xxx “Section 3. All preliminary investigations conducted by a prosecuting fiscal, judge or committee, and all proceedings undertaken in connection therewith, shall be strictly confidential or private in order to protect the reputation of the official under investigation in the event that the report proves to be unfounded or no prima facie case is established. xxx”

Based on the circumstances surrounding the giving of “cash gifts” (that it was given contemporaneously with an official meeting of the League of Provincial Governors held in Malacañang) and that apparently it was given by Palace staff, it appears that the “cash gifts” came from the host (or hostess) of the luncheon meeting.

In addition, those who would ask questions of the two governors should listen carefully to what they say. In particular, Governor Jonjon Mendoza said that the two bags of money (one for him and the other for Governor Panlileo) was given to him right after the meeting, while he was still inside the Palace, by a female person. When he talked, the moment was lost when it was not ferreted out from him: 1. the description of the person who handed the bags of money; 2. was she wearing a uniform, office wear, a suit, etc.; 3. was she wearing an employee’s i.d. or visitor’s i.d. or none; 4.details on her physical characteristics; 5.was she seen in the room during the meeting; etc. 6. would he recognize her again? etc. She’s the link. She’s more important than what the governor felt at that moment or such other questions. (she’ll probaly be reassigned now, so the moment was lost.) (okay, steal ideas here, everybody does.)

Just to clear the air, perhaps the two governors could be pevailed upon to document the money first and hold on to them in the meantime.

The President

the impeachment

ingres61.jpg

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. “Death of Leonardo da Vinci.” 1818. Oil on canvas. Musée du Petit Palais, Paris, France. From abc-gallery.com

In a matter of days, it would take another year for any window to open to impeach President Gloria, as the one filed would be referred to the Justice Committee in a couple of days.

To be fair, last summer after the elections, one administration congressman pointed out that the “opposition” in the House (if you would consider them such) was not inclined to get the President impeached because 2010 was just around the corner and near enough to wait for, and if the President were convicted on impeachment, Vice President Noli de Castro would succeed and serve the remainder of the term and would not be barred from running for President and you would have an incumbent President with all the government resources at his command (again) as presidential contender. So the opposition would just wait for 2010.

I don’t think they would just wait for 2010, the “presidentiables” would be guesting in comedy gag shows, game shows, talk shows, and try to buy as much media mileage and raise funds too, for 2010.

The trouble with not impeaching a President when there is prima facie evidence of betrayal of public trust, is that, even if he/she bows out of power it would be more difficult to indict him/ her; as the constitutionally tasked public officials to do that (the Ombudsman, etc.) are his/her appointees; and without evidence that could be summoned by the coercive powers of an impeachment court, you’ll be starting from scratch at the end of the presidential term.

Maybe we’ll just leave her chances to 2010 and hope that the next President after her is independent- minded enough to pursue such cases.

You like taking chances?

The trouble with not impeaching a President when there is a prima facie case is that: we never learned our lesson.

(or maybe they think they are applying the lesson by not letting again any vice president to take over, whatever the cost of that tactic is. I thought the lesson was: we impeach everytime there is prima facie evidence of betrayal of public trust. Everytime. Or try our darndest, so people will see what they should not put to power. Everytime.)