Cousin of FM crony compelled to testify on BNPP kickbacks
The Sandiganbayan First Division recently denied with finality for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by a cousin of Herminio Disini, a crony of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, regarding an earlier resolution of the anti-graft court compelling the petitioner to testify in court.
In a six-page resolution dated Oct. 10, 2007, the Sandiganbayan said that the court finds no merit to reverse its earlier position based on the arguments of petitioner lawyer Jesus Disini’s motion for the reconsideration of the Resolution of the Court promulgated on Aug. 16, 2007 that denied his amended motion to quash subpoena.
The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, and concurred by Presiding Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Associate Justice Efren de la Cruz.
Last Aug. 16, the Sandiganbayan denied the petition of Jesus Disini to quash the motion of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) compelling him to testify against Herminio Disini who allegedly received millions of dollars in kickbacks for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).
The government is seeking P51 billion in damages from Disini.
Jesus Disini was the chief legal officer of the Herdis Group which was allegedly used by Herminio Disini to launder kickbacks from the BNPP contract.
Government lawyers alleged in their complaint that Disini received $18 million in illegal commissions for allegedly brokering the BNPP contract for American firms Westinghouse Electric Corp. and Burns and Roe.
Government lawyers said that Disini used his close relationship with Marcos to get the deal for the 620-megawatt nuclear power plant in Morong,
The BNPP project is estimated at $2.3 billion, reports showed.
In their Oct. 10 ruling, the Sandiganbayan noted that Paragraphs 1 and 2 or Section 3 of the Immunity Agreement is clear and unequivocal in that the immunity granted to Jesus Disini was not absolute.
The Sandiganbayan said Paragraph 1 of the Immunity Agreement between Jesus Disini and the government refers to Jesus Disini’s assent to appear and testify in the civil and arbitration proceedings then pending in
Paragraph 2, on the other hand, relates to the government’s assurance not to prosecute Jesus Disini in connection with cases relative to the construction of the BNPP, whether in criminal, civil, or administrative or in any case which may have tax implications or filed in connection with the Internal Revenue Code.
“(But) more importantly, while Paragraph 3 expressly provides that the Republic cannot call Jesus Disini to testify as a witness in the cases referred to in the agreement, the last sentence thereof clearly recognizes Jesus Disini’s obligation to provide truthful information or testimony,” said the anti-graft court. “Otherwise, if the concession not to testify against Herminio Disini was absolute under the immunity agreement, then there would have been no need to place the provision.”
The court also said that there is no dispute that all the terms of the contract should be read together or in its entirety.
In the interpretation of contracts, if the terms are clear as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of stipulations becomes the rule of thumb.
The Sandiganbayan also said there is no such express provision for retroactive application of the immunity concession to Jesus Disini, thus the same cannot be made part and parcel of the agreement.
The immunity agreement, therefore, can only be made to apply prospectively to cases referred to therein, said the Sandiganbayan.
Jesus Disini had earlier claimed that he made full compliance with the terms and conditions of the immunity agreement he signed with the PCGG on
- Latest
- Trending
