MAILBOX: Real facts

Dear Mr. Belmonte:

We take strong exception to an article in the Money-Go-Round column of Mr. Victor C. Agustin maliciously captioned as, “PCGG sues Ombudsman, gets lectured yet again by SC for another late filing” which appeared on page B7 of the Dec. 5, 2014 issue of Philippine STAR. As usual, Mr. Agustin did not bother to check what really transpired or, worse, deliberately chose to misrepresent the facts to place the current PCGG and the undersigned in a bad light. Either way, I believe that his actions are not in accord with the Philippine STAR’s high standard of journalistic best practices.

The article gives the impression that the current PCGG where I serve bungled the behest loan case filed against former DBP officials and Mr. Roberto Cuenca, et al., that was the subject of the Nov. 12, 2014 Supreme Court decision and that the undersigned caused a suit to be filed against the Ombudsman. This is totally untrue.

The real facts are as follows:

1. The behest loan case referred to in the said article was filed by the PCGGwith the Office of the Ombudsman on Jan. 6, 2003 or during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which was way before our time.

2. The Office of the Ombudsman rendered an unfavorable decision dated July 19, 2011 and reiterated the ruling after the motion for reconsideration was denied on March 8, 2012. Thereafter, the PCGG Legal Department, together with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), decided to elevate the case by filing a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. I personally did not know about and did not have anything to do with the filing of such petition. The petition was signed by the commissioner-in-charge of the PCGG Legal Department and the OSG. The petition is not a suit directed against the person of the Ombudsman but seeks a review of the ruling on the rather complicated legal question of prescription of actions.

This is not the first time that Mr. Agustin has maligned the undersigned. His public and malicious imputation of an act which I did not perform has caused dishonour and discredit to my person. If the matter is not properly rectified, we will be constrained to pursue other remedies as provided by law.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ANDRES D. BAUTISTA