Philippine Supreme Court Legitimized Kleptocracy

Deviantart

Welcome to kleptocrat nation! The Philippine Supreme Court has legitimized Gloria Arroyo’s kleptocracy-the rule by looters and thieves. The Arroyo government is ruled by Mafia criminals and cronies. It’s lutong makaw! The majority of the magistrates are blind and bias. The Arroyo Supreme Court is a part of wholesale conspiracy of China’s ZTE scam and its clone’s cover-up. In fact, the Philippine Supreme Court legitimized the Arroyo presidency after the 2001 EDSA Dos coup. What national security? What diplomatic matters? The alleged Spratlys sell-out and wholesale conspiracy to commit fraud, bribery, and treachery are covered under Gloria’s executive privilege. Shame on them!

The rule of law is dead under corrupt Arroyo regime. Gloria Arroyo has the rubber stamp do-nothing House of the Representatives, the Supreme Court to justify her misdeeds, the Ombudsman and Department of Injustice to protect her Mafia cronies from prosecution, the military-police to suppress people’s civil liberties and the bishops for their prayers and all-out support. Anak ng jueteng! But no thanks to bribery! Tuloy ang ligaya!

SC Chief Justice Puno dissents
The limits of executive privilege
GMA’s justices uphold Neri’s silence, castrate Senate

CJ Puno: Palace claim of RP-China ties at risk not credible
By Benjamin B. Pulta
Daily Tribune 03/26/2008
The Senate, empowered by the Constitution with the mandate to investigate anomalies in government, and in the Executive branch in aid of legislation, has been effectively castrated by the high court with its ruling issued yesterday involving the invocation of executive privilege.
All of President Arroyo’s men and women in the Supreme Court (SC) appeared to have delivered to her what she wanted: The clipping of the Senate’s powers to investigate, in aid of legislation; to question witnesses and resource persons and demand answers from them; and to cite them in contempt, while upholding the Malacanang officials’ right to invoke executive privilege, and thus evade public accountability even in criminal matters.

The SC yesterday ruled to grant a petition filed by former National Economic Development Authority (Neda) secretary-general now chairman of the Commission on Higher Education Romulo Neri to stop the Senate from compelling him to testify in its investigation into the aborted $329-million national
broadband network project of the government with China’s ZTE Corp.
Voting nine-to-six,the majority of the high court in the decision written by Associate Justice Teresita De Castro agreed with Neri’s claim that the Senate cannot cite any person appearing before legislative inquiries before it in contempt until the upper house passes its rules.
As of 4:00 p.m. yesterday, no official copy of the main ruling was available since it was still being revised, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said, adding that it runs to some 35 pages.

The main decisions said ,in this present search for truth, we should turn to the fundamental constitutional principles.
The SC said while the three department s of government are considered separate,co-equal,coordinate and supreme within their respective spheres they are imbued with a system of checks and balances to prevent unwarranted exercise of power.
Even the courts are repeatedly advised to exercise the power of contempt judiciously and sparingly with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.

The majority added that the Senate committees should have exercised the same restraint adding that after all petitioner (Neri) is not even an ordinary witness. He holds a high position in a co-equal branch of government.
The SC also pointed out that only a minority of the members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee were present during the deliberation.
Clearly,the needed vote is a majority of all the members of the (Senate blue ribbon) Committee. Apparently, members who did not actually participate in the deliberation were made to sign the contempt order. Thus , there is a cloud of doubt as to the validity of the contempt order, the SC said.
The tribunal also cited that in letters made by Neri to the Senate, the former include(d) an expression of his willingness to testify again, provided he be furnished in advance copies of the questions.

The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno was 120 pages long.
Despite the majority vote in favor of the administration in the Neri petition, magistrates of the high court who dissented said a virtual mouthful for the case.
In his separate opinion, the Chief Justice did not give credence to the claim of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita that the country’s relationship with China may be put at risk if Neri is forced to answer the three questions which stem from a Neri allegation of bribery.
Puno said Ermita has no explanation on how diplomatic secrets will be exposed at the expense of national interest if petitioner answered the three disputed questions propounded by the respondent Senate committees.
Neri, Puno pointed out, also failed to explain during the oral argument on the case how diplomatic secrets will be compromised if the three questions are answered by him.

But even assuming arguendo that petitioner Neri can properly invoke the privilege covering national security and military affairs, still, the records will show that he failed to provide the Court knowledge of the circumstances with which the Court can determine whether there is reasonable danger that his answers to the three disputed questions would indeed divulge secrets that would compromise our national security, Puno noted.
The questions, Puno added, should be answered by Neri as these are pertinent to the subject matter of the legislative investigation being undertaken by the respondent Senate committees.

He noted that the questions to Neri have direct relation not only to the subject of the inquiry, but also to the bills pending before the Senate such as Senate Bill No. 1793 which intends to amend Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, Senate Bill No. 1794 or An Act Imposing Safeguards in Contracting Loans Classified as Official Development Assistance and Senate Bill No. 1317 or An Act Mandating Concurrence to International Agreements and Executive Agreements.
Puno further stressed that the strength of the executive privilege is weakened by the fact that the subject of the communication involves a contract with a foreign loan, which is not exclusively vested in the President, but is shared with the Monetary Board (Central Bank).

We also consider the chilling effect which may result from the disclosure of the information sought from petitioner Neri but the chilling effect is diminished by the nature of the information sought, which is narrow, limited as it is to the three assailed questions. We take judicial notice also of the fact that in a Senate inquiry, there are safeguards against an indiscriminate conduct of investigation, Puno added.

With all these considerations factored into the equation, we have to strike the balance in favor of the respondent Senate committees and compel petitioner Neri to answer the three disputed questions, he further said.

Spokesman Marquez, quoting the high court’s majority ruling said that since there are no published rules of the Senate’s rules for contempt no person can be penalized with contempt by the Senate until the guidelines are already published.
Marquez said the ban not only covers Neri but in effect also covers other witnesses appearing before the legislature.
It does not limit the power of the Senate but only defines executive privilege he added.

Dissenting from the majority opinion were Puno and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Adolfo Azcuna.
Carpio however joined the majority in ruling that the arrest warrant issued by the Senate against Neri was handed down in grave abuse of discretion.
The senators ordered Neri’s arrest following his failure to heed their subpoenas for him to appear the Senate inquiry.
The SC ruled that three crucial questions being asked of Neri during the senate proceedings are covered by the rule of executive privilege.
The majority decision said that these questions fall under executive privilege and that the conversations between Neri and the President must remain secret, despite the fact that an earlier SC ruling on EO 464 made it clear that executive privilege does not cover criminal activities.
It was claimed by the majority that for Neri to divulge his conversations with Mrs. Arroyo would put the diplomatic relations between China and the Philippines at serious risk.
Marquez clarified that the SC ruling does not prevent Neri from opting to change his mind and voluntarily testifying before the senate in executive session.
Aside from De Castro those who ruled to uphold the Palace position were Associate Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Dante Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Antonio Nachura, Ruben Reyes and Arturo Brion. All of whom are publicly perceived to toe the Malacanang line.
Brion who replaced Associate Justice Angelina Gutierrez was not yet with the court when the high court held oral arguments on the case last March 4. Marquez clarified that Brion wrote a separate opinion explaining his vote to concur with the majority.
Malacanang was pleased by the decision, saying that the ruling confirmed all along its belief that the Senate had been disrespectful toward the Executive department when it comes to its inquiries in aid of legislation.
What’s good about this ruling is that it emphasized what we have been saying all along that all these time we have been talking about respecting the independence of one another (executive and legislative branches) and (for the Senate) to accord respect to resource persons. In all of this, we have been proven correct. The only reason this Executive Order 464 was ever issued was due to the disrespect (of the Senate) to the Constitution, said Press Secretary and presidential spokesman Ignacio Bunye.
For his part, Deputy presidential spokesman Anthony Golez said they are now looking forward to the Senate and the executive to work out a mutually acceptable rules on appearances in the senate inquiries of witnesses, in aid of legislation.
With Sherwin C. Olaes and PNA

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

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