Ex-Lanao Sur lawmaker’s plea to dismiss ‘pork’ raps junked

MANILA, Philippines —The Sandiganbayan has denied a motion filed by a former congresswoman in Lanao del Sur to dismiss her graft and malversation cases in connection with the pork barrel scam.

The anti-graft court said it found no merit in the motion of former congresswoman Faysah Dumarpa to warrant the dismissal of her criminal cases.

In her motion, Dumarpa cited the supposed “inordinate delay” of the Office of the Ombudsman in investigating the cases.

The Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division said the period of two years and nine months that the ombudsman spent in investigating the complaint against Dumarpa and the other respondents was justified.

It cited the complexity of the so-called pork barrel fund scam, which covers multiple transactions allegedly among several lawmakers, government agencies and non-government organizations.

“It is worth noting that the case involves the Priority Development Assistance Fund or the PDAF scandal. It deals with the alleged misuse by several members of the House of Representatives of their pork barrel through funding non-existent projects,” the court resolution read.

It said the PDAF cases required numerous respondents and voluminous records, which justified the period it took to resolve the preliminary investigation of the cases.

Dumarpa is facing one count each of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and malversation of public funds as provided under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

Filed by the ombudsman in September 2023, the cases stemmed from the alleged misuse of a portion of Dumarpa’s PDAF in 2008 for a supposed livelihood project.

The ombudsman said the project was non-existent.

In her motion, Dumarpa said it took the ombudsman 15 years from the alleged commission of the crimes in 2008 to finish its investigation and file the cases in court in 2023.

She said the length of time that the ombudsman spent in the investigation was “vexatious, capricious and opressive,” and violated her constitutional right to a speedy resolution of the cases.