Noynoy’s P100M ‘pork’ went to bogus NGOs, too
It certainly looks like the accuser appears as guilty as he makes his non-allies appear, in the case of the alleged diversion of their pork barrel allocations to bogus non-government organizations (NGOS).
A closer study of the documents that the Commission on Audit (CoA) sought to be validated by Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., showed that P100 million of President Aquino’s P72.11-billion “stimulus funds” disbursed last year by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) went to bogus NGOs, and were siphoned by at least four bogus NGOs.
This is the latest twist in the continuing controversy over the alleged Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork misuse, as far as some Senate members are concerned.
Both Marcos and Deputy Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III yesterday stood their ground on any involvement in irregularities in the use of their respective pork barrel funds, the latter even mulling filing charges against CoA for issuing post-audit reports without an exit conference or a liquidation from the implementing agency, at least a month after the supposed delivery of goods.
From the initial impression that the P100 million that was being accounted for from Marcos involving his PDAF, the senator realized that the CoA was inquiring into the authenticity of his “endorsement letter” designating four NGOs as “conduits,” pertained to funds released from the so-called “Disbursement Accelaration Program” from Aquino’s funds through the National Livelihood Development Corp. (NLDC).
NLDC, which Marcos claimed was formerly Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC), is a government corporation under the Land Bank of the Philippines (LandBank) and among the so-called implementing agencies noted by the CoA special audit report for 2007-2009 that was supposed to have received and transferred pork barrel funds of lawmakers to NGOs, some of which were found to be “questionable” by the state auditors.
Based on the letter sent to Marcos by CoA, a separate audit is being conducted, in relation to the DAP funds received by NLDC in March, 2012 in which the senator’s chief of staff, Ramon Cardenas, was allegedly authorized by him to sign documents in his behalf.
The DAP being referred to in the alleged forged Marcos letter addressed to NLDC president Gondelina Amata, was the Disbursement Accelaration Plan (DAP) released by DBM since 2011 to government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) to fund and help bolster the country’s economy and infra development.
“It’s not (from) my PDAF. It’s from the DAP because the government had savings then and they wanted to use it before the end of the year so that it will not be reverted to the general fund. That is what this DAP is. Apparently, these funds were sourced from it (coming from the funds of Aquino). But I was not told that there was such fund (alloted to my office).
“I did not know that there was a P100 million there to be disposed of. I did not know that there was such a fund in the millions. I don’t know what these funds are intended for or how it was sourced. I did not know that they manufactured MoAs (memoramdums of agreement) and availed of the funds.
“I can’t say if there are groups behind it because we’re still trying to reconstruct the paper trail. I don’t know if it’s within (the agencies concerned) and how they carried it out. All I know is that these documents were clearly forged.
“I’m not against or for anyone. I just want to find out what this is all about. It is still not clear to me just what really happened. So far, our conclusion was that this was easy to be cleared, as it is easy to spot forged signatures,” Marcos said in a press conference.
The senator and his staff, in “investigating” the documents discovered that Marcos’ and Cardenas’ signatures were either “scanned” or forged.
“If you notice, my name is nowhere in this MoA. They used the signature of my chief of staff and they forged it,” he said.
While his claims could shake up the validity of findings of the CoA and prove to be crucial in ascertaining his and other senators’ liability or lack of it, in the alleged PDAF misuse, Marcos is not about to take immediate steps to bring this to the attention of the blue ribbon committee chaired by Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona. He said the information in his possession.
“If they will ask for it, I will yield it to them, of course. Why will I keep it to myself? This is my proof that I have no involvement in whatever they’re claiming. Honestly, I have not given any thought about it...(giving it to the blue ribbon). I haven’t had the chance to speak to Guingona in the past few days, I don’t know if he wants me to submit it,” he said.
When asked if he will now participate in the blue ribbon hearings, Marcos said he does not intend to since he had already recused himself from the proceedings already.
“I’m still named so the proper thing to do is to recuse myself. I will investigate myself? I don’t need to explain. If they need to study these documents, I will readily give it to them. They can understand it easily.
“I don’t know who’s liable, who’s not. You have to ask the lawyers where the liability lies in the end. We’ll see what will be the result of the investigation,” said Marcos.
Marcos, on Monday bared that his and his chief of staff’ signatures had been forged to pave for the funding of projects under the names of the following NGOs: Ginintuang Alay sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (P5 million); Agricultura para sa Magbubukid Foundation Inc. (P25 million); Kaupdanan para sa Mangunguma Foundation Inc. (P25 million); and Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation Inc. (P45 million).
“We have been able to show that the documents provided us by the CoA which incidentally is the first time I saw any documents that was being referred to (have been misused) This is the first time that CoA sent us a letter, the first official communication coming them,” he said, referring to the letter sent by Magno Oasan, audit team leader of the CoA Office of the Supervising Auditor for NLDC.
“It is clear that the MoAs had been falsified. Our problem is that we cannot prove this falsification without the original which is still I believe is with the NLDC, so we can compare the signatures. I know it was forged. The notary public is non-existent. The authoritization letters were either just scanned or forged. So everything is fake,” the senator said.
“It is clear that all of these were done using my name. We have no record on it. It was manufactured by somebody else, not my office. We don’t know where it happened, this forgery. So far, we are continuing with the investigation,” he assured.
Marcos said it’s highly impossible for him to allot P45 million for one project as he had a self-imposed ceiling of only P3 million to P5 million per project.
Sotto, on the other hand, maintained that his sources from CoA have told him that there are no “irregularities” in the projects being supposedly questioned by the agency as published in another broadsheet.
As provided by laws, those so-called “soft projects” should be liquidated a month after the program was fully accomplished and one year for hard projects since it’s funding is carried out in tranches.
Sotto said that he had already asked his lawyer to study the possibility of filing appropriate charges against the CoA for accusing him of alleged irregularities.
“If we find any irregularities we will take them to court…we will take everyone to court,” Sotto said.
Meanwhile, President Aquino yesterday said that the alleged mastermind on the P10 billion plunder of the PDAF, Janet Lim Napoles, would probably be criminally charged before the anti-graft court Friday by the Department of Justice.
“The first charge with regard to this issue, I understand, will be filed not later than Monday.
“There is a possibility it can be filed by Friday. I will be given as I promised you all a briefing on what the lawyers called the theory of the case, the evidence that supports the theory of the case.
“The theory is what transpired. Evidence is what proves that this thing that we alleged transpired, happened. Then even the analyses and possible defenses that can be brought to the court.
“So a complete briefing sometime this week, and the commitment is not later than Monday next week and possibly by Friday this week,” Aquino said.
Napoles would be charged based on the CoA Special Audit Report by chairman Grace Pulido-Tan.
But Aquino neither confirmed nor denied yesterday when asked on whether his Justice Secretary would include the names of the senators in the criminal charge sheet that would be filed before the anti-graft court, the Sandiganbayan.
“It’s quite hard to commit right now,” Aquino said.
Pulido-Tan had admitted she submitted first a copy of the report to Aquino, two weeks before she made it public.
Those senators identified by Pulido-Tan in her report to the Senate hearing were Ramon Revilla, Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Gringo Honasan.
Aquino said when he assumed the presidency, there was a fund that was found by his administration kept in one government agency.
“We have a very short briefing that I got on items in the 2010 budget.
“If you remember well June 30, 2010. The budget for 2010 was already operational at that point in time.
“There was a fund, (that was) two years continuing appropriation. That was what we had suspected that was deposited in a certain company called Philforest.
Aquino said Philforest was doubted to be connected to Napoles’ scheme to plunder the funds.
“Now, is it connected to Napoles? I cannot say categorically, because we will be talking less and less because we will be filing more and more cases about this particular issue,” Aquino said.
Aquino said he can’t remember having any transaction or an incident identified with Napoles while he was a senator.
“I am normally very good with faces but sometimes, I’m poor with names.
“She doesn’t look familiar whatsoever,” Aquino said.
Aquino said he even asked himself if the person who was brought to his presence in the Palace was the same person he saw in the pictures in the newspapers.
“Now, did I ever meet her? As to the level of saying “hi”, I can’t even say I ever said “hi” to her.
But even having said that, I tried to research in my mind if I ever came across her or even heard of her name; and I hope I am not turning senile but I don’t recall any incident,” Aquino said. (fb post)
EmoticonEmoticon