Noynoy did not receive fertilizer funds – papers

President Noynoy Aquino – and 31 other politicians – did not actually receive any plundered fertilizer fund in 2004 from the Arroyo admin. Their names merely were used to make the ghost fertilizer project and the masterminds’ list of recipients look good.

This is shown in documents from the Commission on Audit and the Dept. of Agriculture at the height of the exposé the following year. P-Noy was then congressman of Tarlac.

Then-agriculture U-Sec. Joc-joc Bolante in 2004 had listed P-Noy and the 31 among 181 congressmen, governors, and mayors who supposedly requested P3 million to P5 million each. A subsequent COA audit showed that while the 32 were “in (Bolante’s) original Annex A, no actual release” of money was made to them.

The DA also certified in Apr. 2005 that, “No funds were released to the Second District of Tarlac for the procurement of farm inputs.” Then-newly appointed agriculture chief Arthur Yap signed the letter in reply to P-Noy’s query two months prior.

P-Noy had his staff e-mail the papers in reaction to my piece last Friday on the Ombudsman exonerating ex-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from the P728-million fertilizer fund plunder. P-Noy recounted on the phone that he and Florencio Abad (then also congressman, now budget secretary) had relied on the COA and the DA reports to clear their names at the Senate inquiry.

Subsequently the Senate in Mar. 2006 concluded: “Bolante cunningly, wittingly listed 105 congressmen, 53 governors, and 23 mayors to justify the immediate release of the fund.” Uniform amounts were released to rice and corn locales, and even to districts in highly urbanized Metro Manila. The Senate said Bolante padded the list “to make it look attractive ... and lend credence to the project.”

In a Letter to the Editor Saturday, Abad expressed concern about my piece’s “great potential to mislead ... in fail(ing) to research on an investigation concluded years ago.”

No intention on my part to mislead, I assure. My three dozen or so consecutive exposés at the time (among them Gen. Garcia’s plundering and massive corruption in the military, Quezon mudslide causers, NAIA-3 construction anomalies, PCSO’s keno project, pollutive factories, narco-trafficking, Customs crooks, fuel smuggling, abusive NBI “assets”, human trafficking, Jacky Tiu kidnapping case mangling, increasing congressional pork barrels, OFWs’ departure hassles, Chinese marine poaching and territorial encroachments, absconding pre-need plans, maltreatment of jail detainees, and jueteng), interspersed with my having to dodge death threats and my advocacies (family planning, biofuels, unsolved journalists’ murders) are no excuse for research gaps in the fertilizer case. My apologies.

The others falsely listed by Bolante as recipients but belied by the COA were: (Region I) Cong. Manuel Ortega, Govs. Victor Francisco Ortega and Victor Agbayani; (Reg. II) Cong. Abad; (Reg. III) Congs. Enrique T. Garcia, Juan Pablo Bondoc, Benigno C. Aquino III, Gov. Vicente P. Magsaysay; (Reg. IV-A) Cong. Plaridel M. Abaya, Rafael Nantes, Francisco Perez; (Reg. VI) Congs. Gabrielle Calizo, Narciso Monfort, Alfredo Maranon Jr., Jose Carlos V. Lacson, J. Apolinario Lozada Jr., Raul Gonzalez, Govs. Niel Tupas and Joseph Maranon, and Vice Gov. Isidro Zayco; (Reg. VIII) Cong. Antonio Nachura; (Reg. X) Cong. Alipio Cirilo Badelles, Govs. Jose Ma. Zubiri Jr. and Loreto Leo Ocampo; (Reg. XI) Gov. Jose Caballero; (Reg. XII) Cong. Erwin Chiongbian; (ARMM) Cong. Gerry Salapuddin, Soraya Jaafar, Hussin Amin, Munir Arbison, Faysah Dumarpa and Gov. Yusop Jikiri.

*      *      *

That Bolante falsely listed multimillion-pesos as “received” all the more raises questions about his boss GMA’s recent exoneration.

Just before the fertilizer and P2-billion more agri-fund scams of Feb. 2004, GMA had seconded the U-Sec. to Malacañang. Reporting directly to GMA, Bolante caused the release of P728 million for ghost fertilizers one week before the start of the presidential-congressional-local election campaign that year.

GMA was running for a full term then, so needed the support of Congress and local officials. In the complaint filed by ex-solicitor general Frank Chavez, now deceased, no money ever went to farmers. A witness revealed how the fertilizer fund doles were divvied up:

• 25 percent retention by Bolante,

• 25 percent for the DA runners,

• 20 percent for the bogus suppliers, and

• 30 percent for the congressman, governor, or mayor.

It’s inconceivable that Bolante operated on his own. “I would imagine so,” then-budget secretary Emilia Boncodin swore when asked if Bolante was under GMA’s instructions.

If the COA knows who didn’t really receive the money, then it also must have documents on how the true recipients spent their shares. It can pursue the paper trail of funds that never reached the 32 politicians.

The Ombudsman is under criticism for clearing GMA the other week. Its reason was that complainant Chavez had given no document or testimony to link her directly to Bolante’s releases. Critics say the agency neglected its power and duty to motu propio, on its own, investigate and dig up evidence. It should have ordered the COA and other agencies to sniff out the paper trail.

The Ombudsman has been receiving increased budgets for field investigations, including hiring and training of lawyers, CPAs, info-technologists, and other professionals. The World Bank also donates experts and funds.

The agency fell back on the so-called “Rabusa doctrine” in clearing GMA. It similarly had dropped in 2013 “for insufficient evidence” the plunder raps filed by retired Armed Forces budget officer, colonel George Rabusa, against a series of chiefs of staff. (How Rabusa is taking the use of his name in vain has yet to be heard. His life has been one of renewal, not the capitulation it is made to appear. Once co-accused of plunder with two successive military comptrollers, he won acquittal then set out to expose, at great risk to his life, the other culprits.)

Gigi Reyes, co-accused with Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and 36 others in the P10-billion pork barrel plunder, is invoking the “Rabusa doctrine” – scantiness of evidence – to secure Ombudsman exoneration.

Anti-graft crusader Marcelo Tecson traces to defective internal rules the Ombudsman’s failure in its power and duty to investigate. That Rule II, Section 2, of Administrative Order No. 7, issued Apr. 1990, lists down the Ombudsman’s options on private complaints for graft: outright dismissal for lack of merit, referral to respondent for comment, endorsement to the proper agency with jurisdiction, forwarding to the appropriate agency for fact-finding and investigation, referral for administrative adjudication, or subjecting to preliminary investigation.

Tecson says the rule has been misused to mean dropping of cases instead of pursuing investigations, which the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act task it to do. Private complainants naturally cannot match the Ombudsman’s resources to gather evidence, so the latter should not depend on them but on its investigators, Tecson says.

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).

Gotcha archives on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jarius-Bondoc/1376602159218459, or The STAR website http://www.philstar.com/author/Jarius%20Bondoc/GOTCHA

E-mail: [email protected]