Malampaya fund released to Napoles NGOs & Malacaňang (Gloria 2009) DBM approved it = PLUNDER complaint. DAP funds diverted to Napoles NGO, Malacaňang (PNoy2012) & DBM approved it = P——
(Use the same evidence, fill in the blanks…)
I have nothing to write today… No one is spelling out that: the two fund releases — from the Malampaya fund and from the DAP fund — have the same evidence against the Malacaňang officials who signed the memos, the first set was Malacaňang 2009; the second set was Malacaňang 2012…
….are you able to follow? got it…? am i talking too fast… here it is in long form….. slow motion…
The Malampaya fund was released to Napoles NGOs. The fund release was made possible because Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Eduardo Ermita, and DBM Secretary Nonong Andaya approved it. They were named as respondents in a plunder complaint filed by the DOJ and the NBI. This was P900 million.
The DAP funds allotted to Senators Jinggoy, Bong, Bongbong, Tito, were released to Napoles NGOs by the DBM and Malacaňang. Malacaňang officials said the the fund release was made possible by the President and the DBM Secretary. Fill in the blanks: Therefore, ______, ________, and ____________, together with _______, __________, et al should be named as respondents in a ____________ complaint.
It’s the same evidence. Signatures of the three officials on memos approving the allotment and fund releases.
Ok. here is the longer version:
Based on the DOJ and NBI complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman last Thursday: The Malampaya fund was released to the Napoles NGOs – these are: Dalangpan Sang Amin Utod Kag Kasimanwa Edn.; Saganang Buhay sa Atin Foundation Inc.; Kasaganahan para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc.; Ginintuang Alay sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc.; Ginintuang Pangkabuhayan Foundation Inc.; Micro Agri Business Citizens Initiative Foundation Inc.; Karangyaan para sa Magbubukid Foundation Inc.; Kaupdanan para sa Mangunguna Foundation Inc…
That was in 2009. The President then was Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Executive Secretary was Eduardo Ermita, the DBM Secretary was Nonong Andaya. All three including 20 other government officials and Janet Lim-Napoles, et al, were named as respondents in a plunder complaint filed by the DOJ last Thursday based on documentary and testimonial evidence. The evidence against Gloria, Eduardo Ermita, and DBM Secretary Nonong Andaya were their signatures on memos endorsing or approving the allotment and fund release.
News peg from a news daily: “In a radio interview, deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte said the Palace was “surprised” when it read the story in the Inquirer that Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Ramon Revilla Jr., Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vicente Sotto III had written letters requesting the transfer of funds initially allotted to the Department of Agrarian Reform to the National Livelihood Development Corp. (NLDC), and naming certain NGOs as their conduits in the implementation of the project.”
“Valte said the parties concerned, including the government, should establish whether there was truth to reports that the senators actually named the Napoles’ NGOs as recipients of the funds from the DAP.”
“The senators have denied the accusations, saying their signatures were forged.
“When asked why the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) allowed the senators to divert their allocations from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to these NGOs, Valte said: “Best to ask Secretary (Florencio) Abad.” “
So…..you can see…Here it is…
2012, the President is PNoy; Eduardo Ermita’s job is now Paquito Ochoa’s job; and the DBM secretary is Butch Abad. DAP funds were allotted to senators by these three officials in the following amounts, among others: “Based on documents obtained by the Inquirer, Estrada, Revilla and Marcos supposedly sought the release of P100 million each, and Sotto P70 million from the DBM on various dates from Dec. 22, 2011, to March 21, 2012.”
Or a total of at least P370 million.
As you can see, i’m not diverting anyone’s attention from the Napoles cases – these two are Napoles cases involving as they do, Napoles NGOs; and the following are named here: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Eduardo Ermita, Nonong Andaya: Malampaya fund for P900 million. And then, the DAP fund for at least P370 million for the four senators, Jinggoy, Bong, Bongbong, Tito, released to the Napoles NGOs, and those who approved the fund releases in Malacaňang, namely… Ok…. I won’t put their names in the same line, I separated the paragraph because…didn’t want to name them in the same paragraph… kayo na lang…
The DAP funds allotted to Senators Jinggoy, Bong, Bongbong, and Tito, were made possible by the approval of President PNoy, DBM Secretary Butch Abad, and the executive secretary. These DAP funds were diverted to Napoles NGOs. These are : National Livelihood Development Corp. (NDLC), and “Revilla named three Napoles NGOs—the Ginintuang Alay sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (GASMFI), Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation Inc. (Cared), and the Kaupdanan Para sa Mangunguma Foundation Inc. (KPMI). The first two NGOs were to receive P30 million each, while KPMI was to get P40 million. xxx Estrada listed the Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation Inc. (AEPFFI) and the Agricultura para sa Magbubukid Foundation Inc. (APMFI) which would each “implement” P35 million worth of projects. The remaining P30 million was to be implemented by the Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation Inc. (SDPFFI).” (from the Inquirer).
Eduardo Ermita’s defense and Nonong Andaya’s defense were that: they just signed documents as a matter of course and “hindi ko naman alam na may mga nag-aabang duon para kunin ang pera…” –Nonong Andaya.
Butch Abad when asked by the Inquirer about the funneling of DAP funds to the Napoles NGOs said that he was not responsible for it, the questions should be directed to the implementing agencies…
i hate writing this.
Newspeg: The Supreme Court in a Jan. 17 two-page minute resolution upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by former solgen Frank Chavez against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) fund in 2004.
Here’s the announcement of the Supreme Court at their website:
“In a two-page minute resolution dated January 17, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)’s dismissal of the criminal charges filed by former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the alleged misuse of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in 2004.
“In his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Chavez, among others, sought the reversal of the assailed Ombudsman rulings approving the resolution of a Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Investigators that recommended the dismissal of malversation charges against Arroyo for the alleged illegal transfer of P530,382,445 in OWWA Medicare Fund to the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) and of the $350,000 from the OWWA Capital Fund to several labor attachés in the Middle East during the US-Iraq crisis. (Chavez v. Arroyo, GR Nos. 203884-85, Min. Res., January 17, 2013)”
Lawyers say they’ve been pinkslipped when they get this kind of “decision”/ “resolution”– it’s usually two paragraphs, the rest of the page/ space being taken up by the title, the names of the parties, addresses, the cc’ed names again, the names of the participating justices.
A petition for review and certiorari under Rule 45 — i don’t know about you, but Rule 45 petition for review is not easy for me.
This kind of “appeal” raises only questions of law and review is not a matter of right but of “sound judicial discretion”. The following are the pertinent rules of procedure:
“Rule 45. Sec. 6. Review discretionary.—A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
“(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
“(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision. (4a)”