SC affirms decision dismissing raps on Marcos behest loans

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the ombudsman’s decision dismissing the graft charges filed against two Cabinet officials of the late president Ferdinand Marcos and several other individuals over the alleged $20-million behest loans granted by Philippine National Bank (PNB) to the Marbella Club Manila Inc. supposedly for the construction of a tourism resort in Cavite in 1980.

In a 16-page SC decision promulgated on Jan. 17 but published only on Wednesday, the petition for certiorari filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was dismissed, thus affirming the Aug. 24, 2012 resolution and Oct. 9, 2012 order of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The decision was signed by SC Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rodil Zalameda, Ricardo Rosario, Jose Midas Marquez and Maria Filomena Singh.

Before this, the PCGG filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against former trade secretary Roberto Ongpin, tourism secretary Jose Aspiras, former PNB officials and former officials of the Marbella Club Manila Inc. over the alleged $20-million behest loan.

The PCGG said the loan granted by the PNB to Marbella Club Manila was unwarranted as the borrower “was a poor credit risk” and that the loan “was attended with manifest partiality, bad faith and/or inexcusable negligence.”

In their respective counter-affidavits, the respondents said the alleged offenses committed in 1980 “have already prescribed,” which side the ombudsman took in a decision on Aug. 24, 2012 as it emphasized that “it found no probable cause” to indict them for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. ?

The PCGG appealed the ombudsman’s decision, but this was denied on Oct. 9, 2012, which prompted the agency to file a petition for certiorari before the SC for review of the decision.

In deciding the case, the SC said that PCGG’s petition must be dismissed for lack of merit as “the ombudsman acted pursuant to its mandate and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolution and order.”

“Accordingly, this court upholds the principle of non-interference with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the ombudsman absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion on its part and of the established exceptions for this court to do so,” the SC said.

The SC also emphasized that the ombudsman clearly based the dismissal of the complaint on facts and substantial evidence presented before them.