Political Gambit: Former Justice Secretary Nani Perez Charged For $2-M Impsa Bribe

Photo: Newsbreak

Why only now four months before midterm elections? There’s no surprise in the latest Ombudsman move or Moro-Moro. I don’t think ex-DOJ chief Nani Perez is ready to spill the beans. It may take years before final judgment of the bribery and extortion case. It’s a calculated political gambit or to gain pogi points for the discredited Arroyo administration. The issue next year's poll is Gloria Arroyo and her inept government. It appears that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is trying to boost her big boss' credibility in fighting graft and corruption. The midterm elections will be a referendum on usurper Gloria Arroyo and on her tyrant policy. An opposition controlled-Congress may end Gloria’s Enchanted Kingdom. How about Joc-Joc Bolante’s P728 M fertilizer scam? This case is gathering dust at Office of Ombudsman. Are they willing to sacrifice the bagman Bolante for pogi points?

Perez charged for $2-M Impsa bribe

By Dona Policar and Gerry Baldo

Daily Tribune 01/09/2007

He was the Secretary of Justice then, but he was found to have extorted some $2 million from a businessman, said to be part of the bribe money offered by the Argentine power firm Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima (Impsa), in exchange for a sovereign guarantee contract for the power producer just two days after Gloria Arroyo and her Justice secretary assumed office following the Edsa II coup d’etat.

President Arroyo’s first Justice chief, Hernando “Nani” Perez, has finally been charged with extortion, graft and corruption and falsification of public documents by the Office of the Ombudsman, along with his wife, Rosario, his brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and Ernest Escaler, the private banker at Coutts Bank in Hong Kong,

who is also a known fund-raiser for Mrs. Arroyo’s many questionable foundations.

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez approved the filing of the charges against Perez et al, but spared him the charges of plunder, despite the fact that the amount involved is over the plunder threshold of P50 million.

Reliable sources told the Tribune yesterday that this was purposely done to ensure that Perez, who had insisted on charging deposed President Joseph Estrada with plunder, would have the opportunity to post bail.

The charges against Perez stemmed from the allegations leveled against him by then Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Crespo, who accused the then Justice secretary of having extorted $2 million from him, in exchange for not including him in the plunder case against Estrada, or testifying against him. It was also said that the $2 million from Jimenez formed part of the Impsa bribe, with the bulk of it going to the top officials in the new Arroyo government, as their “commission” for the immediate approval of the Impsa deal.

The Ombudsman’s investigators found that the bank documents showed the illegal acts of the then Cabinet official.

The 66-page ruling was released only yesterday although it was promulgated on Friday last week. The cases are scheduled to be filed this week at the Sandiganbayan against Perez, his wife, Rosario, his brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

The Swiss authorities over two years ago, sought the assistance of the Arroyo government in getting certain bank documents for them to be able to file a case of money laundering against Perez and his wife, who had opened an account in the Swiss bank while depositing the $2 million. Both Malacañang, along with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Senate, then dominated by Arroyo allies, rejected the Swiss Government’s request. The Ombudsman, even with all the documents to prove the plunder and graft committed by Perez, sat on the case for years.

Government probers, in charging Perez et al, concluded that evidence of the illegal acts committed by the four accused, cannot merely be denied by them.

“The denial of Perez cannot overcome the positive assertion of Jimenez, more so that the charges were substantiated with convincing evidence,” the prosecutors said, referring to the $2million Jimenez deposited in the Coutts Bank in Hong Kong in February 2001.

“This Office finds that Perez, in conspiracy with Escaler, Arceo and Rosario Perez, took advantage of his position as the DoJ Secretary by demanding Jimenez to deliver the $2 million in connection with the execution of affidavits.”

Jimenez accused Perez of extortion. He claimed Perez demanded from him the money so he (Perez) would stop coercing Jimenez into executing affidavits against the detained leader, as well as the other officials of former President Joseph Estrada, whom the congressman referred to as “targets” of Perez.

It will also be recalled that the Tribune published a notarized affidavit from a petitioner in a different case where it said that Perez was also known to have extorted money from several other individuals who had become “witnesses” for the prosecution against Estrada, and had threatened to charge them with plunder if they did not provide the grease money and testify against the deposed leader.

During a privilege speech, then congressman Jimenez claimed that the former Justice secretary extorted money from him during a meeting two days after Mrs. Arroyo assumed the presidency in January 2001.

That meeting was followed by another one on Feb. 13 of the same year where the act of extortion was alleged, a meeting which was not specifically denied by Perez

It will be recalled that shortly after that meeting, and when the money from Jimenez’ Cayman’s bank account was deposited in Escaler’s account for Perez, he flew to Hong Kong, apparently to check on the deposit and to have this transferred to another account.

Jimenez, who was also convicted of tax evasion cases in the United States, claimed to have deposited $2million in a numbered account of Escaler at the Coutts Bank in Hong Kong on Feb. 13, 2001.

Records showed that Jimenez deposited $2 million in beneficiary account HO133706 of Coutts Bank in Hong Kong, from Trade and Commerce Bank, Cayman Islands through the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York.

Bank documents provided by both Swiss and Hong Kong authorities, according to the probers, have clearly established the transfer of funds from Escaler’s HK Coutts Bank account to Rosario’s and Arceo’s Swiss accounts.

Escaler, whom Perez had reportedly conspired with, being the initial transferee of the Jimenez fund, offered “no explanation to show that the transfer to his account was the outcome of a legitimate transaction with Jimenez.”

The Ombudsman also said that “no specific denial was made that Jimenez, in accordance with the instructions of Escaler, transmitted the $2 million to the account, and subsequently, Escaler transmitted the $1.7 million to Rosario and the $250,000 to Arceo through a check or bank draft.”

“If indeed Rosario and Arceo had no knowledge of, nor participated in the opening of the supposed escrow accounts, then how could they have effectively served as trustees for the amount supposedly held in escrow? Perez and Escaler imply that only they were privy to the MOU as well as the escrow agreement. This renders their defense suspect,” it added.

The Ombudsman took note of the accused initial declaration that the money deposited constituted the inheritance of Rosario and Arceo. The Perezes said in their Joint Counter-Affidavit that the funds were proceeds of the same, through a Memorandum of Understanding, of their Batangas property Malvarosa Ventures Inc. to Escaler, which in fact was not notarized.

This, according to the Ombudsman was a “mere private instrument” that did not prove the sale of Malvarosa.

“Indeed, it is curious that as vendee, Escaler would allow the consideration for the supposed sale to be deposited in an account held by close relations of the vendor, Perez, and over which the vendor himself had control as attorney-in-fact,” the resolution said.

“This office finds that Perez, in conspiracy with Escaler, Arceo and Rosario Perez took advantage of his position as the DoJ Secretary by demanding Jimenez to deliver that $2 million,” the report said.

Perez, a former Batangas congressman, is closely identified with Mrs. Arroyo, who has been known to protect him from all these charges, which surfaced early during her first stint at the presidency.

Perez, then Justice secretary, also barred immigration, which was under his supervision, from releasing any documents pertaining to his flight to Hong Kong, in what could be termed as an obstruction of justice.

Jimenez filed a complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman on Dec. 23, 2002 after his privilege speech and described how the $2-million payoff was made to the former justice secretary. He also provided the then Ombudsman, Simeon Marcelo, the copies of the bank documents and checks from his Cayman’s bank, as well as the New York bank routing.

Jimenez was known to have been the point man in the Philippines for Impsa. He tried pushing the approval of the sovereign guarantee from Estrada, bribing him with $14 million. Estrada rejected it.

In a Senate inquiry where the former President was called upon to testify to the Impsa bribery which included the highest official in the land, Estrada said Jimenez offered him $14 million in bribe money in exchange for a sovereign guarantee for the Impsa power plant. Estrada said he rejected the bribe, which was why Impsa was unable to get the sovereign guarantee. But a few days after the Edsa revolt, Jimenez and the Impsa officials were in Malacañang, forging the deal with the new government officials.

The sovereign guarantee was quickly granted, even as Malacañang, through the prosecution in the plunder case, insists it was Estrada who had signed the Impsa sovereign guarantee.

After Mrs. Arroyo and Perez signed the contract, Jimenez claimed he deposited $2 million to the Coutts Bank in the Hong Kong account of Escaler, said to be a facilitator for money laundering activities.

Escaler made no denial.

“No specific denial was made that Jimenez, in accordance with the instructions of Escaler, did transmit the $2-million to the account and subsequently, Escaler transmitted the $1.7-million to Arceo-Rosario and the $250,000 to Arceo through a cheque or bank draft. Perez also did not specifically deny the accusations in the complaint pertaining to the meeting in Feb. 13 where the act of extortion was alleged,” the panel said.

Perez isn’t the only one responsible for the controversial IMPSA deal
Timeline of extortion accusations against ex-DoJ chief
Closing in On Nani

NAIA3: PIATCo Fiasco

Malaya 01/06/2006

Corruption wraps Piatco concession
Time line shows it all

BY AMADO P. MACASAET
EVENTS and dates hardly leave any doubt that the award of the NAIA Terminal 3 to Philippine International Airport Terminals Corp. and its partner, Fraport, was attended by corruption, deceit and bribery.
The award was, as declared by the Supreme Court, illegal from the very beginning and therefore did not exist.
Yet, Piatco filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce in Singapore. Fraport filed a similar request with the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington DC. Both of them are seeking compensation in spite of the fact that the panel of lawyers defending the Philippines has shown beyond doubt because it is undisputed that the Philippines is a victim of what could be considered criminal acts by the partners.
The time line of Piatco’s corrupted concession shows it all.
Yet, Malacañang is said to be prepared to award Piatco and/or Fraport the incredible amount of $450 million in payment for a supposedly world-class airport that is unfinished and certified as unsafe.
Records show that in June 1996, or around the time the countdown started for the last two years of the Ramos presidency, the Department of Transportation and Communications issued competitive and comparative proposals and bid documents for the construction of the proposed new terminal of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
In September of the same year, Pantaleon D. Alvarez, a member of the pre-qualification and bid awards committee (PBAC), set up a meeting and introduced Jeffrey Cheng to Antonio Henson, president of Asian Emerging Dragons Corp. which earlier submitted an unsolicited original proposal for NAIA 3.
On Oct. 15, 1996, the PBAC declared Paircargo as the winning bidder. Nevertheless, the PBAC invited AEDC to submit a counter bid.
On Feb. 27, 1997, the Paircargo group was formally incorporated as the Philippine International Air Terminals Corp.
In a short period from January to April 1997, Piatco negotiated the terms of the concession agreement with the PBAC.
On April 15, AEDC filed a suit with the Pasig City regional trial court demanding that the award to Piatco be nullified, claiming that the company was not properly pre-qualified.
Two events took place in 1996. On September 20, Paircargo of the family of Cheng Yong submitted the only competing bid to the PBAC.
Four days later, on September 24, the PBAC pre-qualified Paircargo. AEDC objected, saying that Paircargo did not satisfy the nationality requirements of the BOT law. Neither did Paircargo satisfy the financial requirements specified in the bid documents.
On Dec. 11, 1996, the PBAC awarded the bid to Piatco.
The Investment Coordinating Committee of the NEDA noted the concession agreement but did not approve it for lack of signatories.
Piatco hired Fraport on September 1998 as consultant. The German company insisted on a rebidding.
The DOTC, Manila International Airport Authority, and Piatco signed an "amended and restated concession agreement" (ARCA). The DOTC proceeded to submit the ARCA to the ICC for approval.
Quisumbing Torres, the firm that did due diligence, alerted Fraport "to the serious limitations and risks arising from the Terminal 3 project."
President Estrada wrote a memorandum on Feb. 11, 1999, "affirming the government’s commitment to extend full assistance to Terminal 3 in order to insure its completion and the commencement of its commercial operation by 2001."
On March 12, 1999, the Fraport supervisory board decided to invest in Piatco through equity and interest free-loan in spite of the warnings of Quisumbing Torres of the risks and serious limitations in the Terminal 3 project.
CHANGES
On the same day, Rodom Fetiza of the technical staff of the NEDA informed the ICC Technical Board of 80 substantial changes in the text of the ARCA compared to the 1997 concession agreement. The changes, according to Fetiza, affected the rights of government.
He argued with DOTC Secretary Wilfredo Trinidad that the changes were illegal because they translated into government guarantees which were not allowed under the Build-Operate-Transfer Law.
In spite of the objections, the ICC Cabinet committee conditionally approved the ARCA although the technical working group objected to the language.
Fraport put in equity in the Terminal 3 project and acquired 25 percent of Piatco. In addition, the German company acquired 40 percent of Philippine Air Ground Services (PAGS) and another 40 percent of PAGS Terminal Inc.
The two companies both controlled by the family of Cheng Yong are direct and major stockholders of Piatco.
The purchase of shares by Fraport resulted in a cascade that in turn raised the equity of Fraport, a foreign company, beyond the 40 percent constitutional limit.
On Aug. 19, 1999, the board of NEDA approved the ARCA. Slightly more than a week later, on Aug. 27, 1999, the first supplement to the ARCA was signed.
TAKENAKA HIRED
Takenaka, a 300-year-old Japanese company, got from Piatco the engineering procurement contract.
A Dr. Losch, consultant of Fraport, reported on April 1, 2000, that prospective long-term lenders were unhappy with the project "because they recognize that the Chengs lack the money, experience, competence and business reputation to make Terminal 3 successful."
Prophetic warning, as it now turns out.
Piatco established a kickback scheme identified under Schedule 7 of the engineering and procurement contract.
Also as early as April 2000, the quality assurance inspector noted that the design drawings were "extremely different from the tender design drawings."
Wintrack was hired on June 7, 2000 as subcontractor to demolish and clear subterranean structures from the construction site.
In the same month, on the 15th, construction of Terminal 3 finally began.



Philippines complies with ICC order
The people pay for Arroyo's corruption
Corruption Still Haunts Arroyo Presidency
International court rules in favor of PIATCo
Judge Handling PIATCo Case Murdered
An Idle Airport
GERMANS OWN 61% OF PIATCo

Jocjoc Bolante’s Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissed

The Ombudsman Malditas Gutierrez is still investigating the P728 million fertilizer scam filed by former Solicitor General Frank Chavez and Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr., chairman Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture. The truth is that the case is not moving or gathering dust and cobwebs in the Office of the Ombudsman. Former DA Usec Jocjoc Bolante cannot be extradited without final resolution of the fertilizer scam. Documents from the Commission on Audit showed that more than 100 House of Representatives members, 53 governors and 26 town mayors received between P3 million and P10 million each in fertilizer funds from the Department of Agriculture shortly before the May 2004 elections. What do we expect from Malditas? Is she a part of cover-ups operations?


Wisconsin court summons lawyer Harry Roque to testify in Bolante case

Joc-Joc’s bail junked; now seeks US asylum

Daily Tribune 10/22/2006

For the second time running, President Arroyo’s former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante’s bid for freedom has been denied by the Wisconsin Court and Bolante remains confined at the Kenosha County jail in Wisconsin.
He is now said to be officially seeking political asylum, with Philippine lawyer Harry Roque, who had earlier submitted his amicus brief to the court, which earlier took it in “advisement,” saying that Bolante will have difficulty in proving political persecution while he continues to be protected by President Arroyo.
In a Tribune telephone interview yesterday with Roque who is attending a conference in Sydney, Australia, the lawyer informed the Tribune that he had received an official summons from the US court for him to be present at the hearing of the Bolante case on Nov. 7.
“I will be vigorously opposing his petition for political asylum. For him to claim that the Senate inquiry on the P3 billion fertilizer funds scam is politically motivated and that the charges against Joc-Joc are unfounded would be deemed a “frivolous” excuse in seeking political asylum,” Roque said.
But the lawyer also said he would help Bolante in seeking political asylum in the US and would pose no opposition to it, if the former Agriculture official agrees to a deposition where he will tell all about the fertilizer funds scam where billions of public funds were diverted to the campaign kitty of Mrs. Arroyo and partly used to fatten the campaign chests of her political bets, to ensure that the vote would go to Mrs. Arroyo.
“I will be in the US, in Kenosha county jail a day before the court hearing, at exactly 9 a.m., to await the decision of Joc-Joc on whether he agrees to a deposition or to ignore it. If he agrees to a deposition and tells all, then I will not oppose his petition for political asylum,” Roque said, adding that “I will even testify to the fact that his life will definitely be in danger if he returns home, as he will be facing the wrath of Mrs. Arroyo if he spills the beans. That would certainly be legitimate grounds for political asylum as there will be political persecution on him.”
Thus far, there has been no communication between Bolante and Roque.
In the ruling by District Judge Lynn Adelman, a copy which was furnished the Bolante contends that the inquiry is politically motivated and that any allegations against him are unfounded. He did not respond to the summons but rather traveled to Hong Kong and then to the United States. He arrived in Los Angeles on July 7, 2006, where officers of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained him and have since declined to release him on bond.”
Bolante insists that he had a valid US visa, but the ruling also made mention of the fact that a consular officer in the American Embassy in Manila, wrote Bolante twice to inform him that his visa had been canceled.
“A consular officer in Manila to petitioner on Feb. 15, 2006 and March 20, 2006 (advised) him that his visa was no longer valid. The March 20 letter states that ‘as of today your nonimmigrant visa has been revoked under INA § 214(b).’ A nonimmigrant visa is one issued to an alien who intends to remain in the United States indefinitely. INA § 101(a)(15). Petitioner denies receiving either letter. He states that the consul had no reason to believe that he would overstay his visa and no lawful basis for revoking it. He states that his wife remains in the Philippines and that he owns property there. He disputes that the Philippine Senate issued an arrest warrant for him.
“Petitioner states that when he traveled to the United States, he believed he had a valid visitor’s visa; he has since concluded that the government unlawfully revoked that visa. Upon arrival in Los Angeles, petitioner advised DHS that he intended to remain in the United States for two months to discuss the possibility of establishing a trading business, see his dentist and submit his expense report to Rotary International, of which he was the treasurer. DHS advised petitioner that the Philippine Senate had issued an arrest warrant for him and that as a result, the United States consular office in Manila had revoked his visa.
On July 13, 2006, the United States initiated removal proceedings against him.”
It was also stated in the ruling that a consular officer, the Secretary of State or the Secretary’s delegate may revoke a visa. The rule does not limit an officer’s discretion to revoke a visa, but State Department regulations impose guidelines governing revocation.
It was further stated by the judge that with the new laws, “Congress has taken it (jurisdiction) out of my hands.”
It will be recalled that Bolante had impleaded even Condoleeza Rice, but it appears that the Secretary of State is empowered to revoke visas.
“Petitioner argues that the (US) government violated 22 C.F.R. § 41.122(a) by revoking his visa because of a political dispute in the Philippines and that it is therefore detaining him without due process.”
But the judge pointed out that the argument cannot be addressed since she lacks “ subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The legality of petitioner’s detention depends on the resolution of such issues as whether the government lawfully revoked his visa and whether he is removable from the United States and, as indicated, I am precluded from reviewing those issues.
“Further, because the government has initiated removal proceedings and such proceedings are ongoing, the present case is not within the narrow category of cases over which district courts have jurisdiction.
“In addition, I may not review DHS’s refusal to parole petitioner..(and) because I lack jurisdiction to grant a writ, I have no inherent power to grant bail as a means of making the habeas remedy effective.”
The petition for Bolante’s writ of habeas corpus was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as was his petition for bail since the DHS refused to grant Bolante bail.
Earlier, the American lawyers of Bolante spoke with the Philippine lawyer in the US, Mary Crost, of the Roque team in the Bolante case, and sought to cut a “one-time” deal between Bolante and Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr, who headed the Senate panel that probed the fertilizer fund scam. The deal failed to push through because Magsaysay refused to agree to it, saying that if Bolante had anything to say, he should say it openly, as the senator insisted on transparency.
Shortly after, the American lawyers again used the Philippine newsclippings that had the mother of an alleged rape victim of an American serviceman and his three colleagues who allegedly cheered him on as the rape took place in a van, saying that an exchange deal was offered the victim: Bolante’s case for the US servicemen’s acquittal. This was used as “proof” that Bolante and his continued detention in the kenosha jail were being used for political ends.
There was doubt, however, that this could stand up in the American court.
The latest move made by Bolante and his lawyers was to ask Magsaysay to make himself available for Bolante’s hearing on Nov. 7 through a teleconference.
Magsaysay thumbed down the Bolante request, saying there was nothing that he could add or subtract to the Senate’s case and the evidence against Bolante lodged before the Ombudsman, but which the Ombudsman has not acted on, despite an earlier complaint on the same fertilizer funds scam issue lodged a year earlier.
The senator wants Bolante to come home and face the music, for him to testify before the Senate, for the arrest warrant to be lifted.
It was noted that the request for Magsaysay’s teleconference presence at the hearing did not come from the judge, but from Bolante.
Roque received a summons from the court, which he said he will honor.
Bolante is believed to be protected by Mrs. Arroyo and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
They have refused to provide any information on Bolante, and would have kept the arrest of the former Arroyo official secret, had his arrest not hit the media.
The DFA officials lamely claimed, two days after his arrest, and two days after the news broke in the media, that their offices were closed, being a holiday and that they could not immediately report on the arrest of Bolante.

Related Links:

Witnesses to Fertilizer Scam: Killed, Hunted

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is the Coddler of Criminals

PAGC still probing Bolante for ‘fertilizer scam’

Milking Cow: Marcos' Recovered Swiss Wealth

P729 Million Fertilizer Scam

COMELEC- Mega Pacific Misdeal: 180 Degrees Turn

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez has zero credibility when it comes to prosecuting and sending BIG FISH to jail. It will soon clear former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante in P728-million fertilizer scam. What do we expect from former Jose Pidal legal counsel?

The Ombudsman’s decision absolving Commission on Elections (COMELEC) officials from liability for the voided P1.3-billion poll automation contract with Mega Pacific Consortium is a grand conspiracy to cover-up massive cheating in the 2004 presidential election. COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos and Commissionaire Ressurection Borra may spill the beans if they are not fully protected by Gloria Arroyo and Jose Pidal crime family. The Ombudsman has recommended the impeachment against Commissioner Ressurection Borra. WHY the unexpected 180 degrees turn? The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Supreme Court had established an anomalous transaction between COMELEC and Mega Pacific. It’s impossible that the findings of the Senate and the Supreme Court are both wrong and lack proof of guilt. She is the first woman Ombudsman and the first to reverse Senate and the Supreme Court findings and ruling. Lutong Malacanang-Macao!

The appointment of Merceditas Gutierrez to the Office of the Ombudsman is purposely to protect Gloria Arroyo and her cohorts from crime against the Filipino people and the State. The Ombudsman can no longer be trusted under the corrupt and illegitimate Arroyo regime. What transparency and accountability? GO TO HELL Merceditas Gutierrez! EAT YOUR OWN WORDS!

"I will give mercy to people who should not be charged. But there will be no mercy for people who should be charged," Merceditas Gutierrez 12/02/2005

May God have mercy on you!
Related Links:
The Office of the Ombudsman
Malaya

Down With Philippine-Style Kleptocracy

The World Bank in its Governance Matters 2006 report gave the Philippines a failing mark to curb graft and corruption. Malacanang Palace and Batasan Pambansa are bunches of kleptocrats, liars, crocodiles, shameless bastards and traitors of republican democracy. The democratic principle of government accountability does not exist anymore or D.O.A. as the case of the 2nd impeachment complaint. Lower house’ impeachment rules are twisted just to satisfy their master. Those shameless lawmakers who voted against the impeachment of bogus President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo must pay a high price in the next 2007 election. I believe majority of voters will trash (trapos-basura) them out where they belong. Under corrupt GMA leadership, public officials are immune to congressional inquiry or senate investigation and mostly rewarded for their crimes. The illegitimate Gloria Arroyo government perpetuates kleptocracy in the Philippines. The Filipino people want justice. The United States government with the Group of Eight, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum, the Summit of the Americas, and the Global Forum on Fighting Corruption has been aggressively addressing issues concerning kleptocracy, including for example by denying safe haven to corrupt officials, to those who corrupt them, their illicitly-acquired assets and prosecuting those engaged in bribery, including in international business transactions. First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo a.k.a. Jose Pidal and Joc-Joc Bolante are living showcase of kleptocracy in the Philippines. NO SAFE HAVENS FOR CORRUPT PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS! Send them-kleptocrats to Pluto or Xena for the rest of their lives. Down with Gloria kleptocracy!

Related Links:
Newslink
Newslink
No Safe Haven For Kleptocrats
PAMUSA