She can thank Filipinos outside the United States for their prayers. But she should thank Filipinos in America for their votes.
During the last three Wednesday nights, ever since Jessica Sanchez was “saved” by American Idol judges Jennifer Lopez, Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson after being nearly eliminated for having the fewest number of votes from the audience, some Filipino Americans, who normally do not watch, this search for a singing superstar, have suddenly warmed up to this top-rated prime-time TV talent contest every Wednesday night.
And when the program is over, that’s the only time that these Fil Ams would start to pull up their sleeves and let their fingers do the work.
Depending on what is convenient for viewers, they can vote by using their landline/cell phones, by dialing a toll free number that would only be made known during the program, or AT &T Text voting thru SMS (short messaging service) text or online voting by accessing their respective Facebook accounts.
They can only do the voting two hours after the American Idol was shown within the showing’s time zone.
They can vote as many times as they want, using toll-free voting and AT & T text voting but they will be limited to 50 votes when voting online.
Voting is a little bit tricky. If someone is voting by landline/cell phone, his area code should match the time zone and area code where the American Idol TV program was shown.
 
GET UP AND VOTE!

For instance, if someone is in Chicago, Illinois, he can only call a certain toll free number to dial if the area code of the phone number belongs to Chicago area. This will disallow the vote of a caller from a different time zone who votes shortly after the American Idol was shown in the Chicago area.
This means that callers from San Francisco, California, Canada or the Philippines will not be able to vote for two hours shortly after the Idol program was shown in Chicago area.
Two of my friends, Marlon L. Pecson of Chicago and Fernando “Ronnie” M. Estrada of San Jose, California, would drop everything they are doing shortly before the end of the program to prep themselves to vote.
They would remind me or sometimes I would remind them to vote. Usually, I vote 50 times online and 100 times by landline. Marlon and Ronnie would vote more than I do as they have more fun maximizing their votes during the two-hour window that would allow them to vote.
If only about 10,000 out of the estimated 4 million Filipinos and Filipino Americans in the U.S. would vote the same way that we do, it should generate at least 1.5-million votes. If there are 100,000, who would vote, there should be around 15 million votes that could make a dent, if not a difference, from the more than 50-million votes that turn up every Wednesday night.
 
FILIPINOS WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU

I am sure the relatives of Jessica, if they do the voting by themselves, would not be able to generate the massive number of votes needed to be safe from elimination.
Even a start-up Jessica Sanchez Fans Club would struggle to deliver the respectable votes needed to get her up to the higher level.
With the remaining contestants whittled down to final four – Jessica Sanchez, 16, of San Diego, California; Hollie Cavanagh, 18, McKinney, Texas; Joshua Ledet, 19, Westlake, Louisiana; and Phillip Phillips, 21, Leesburg, Georgia – there is clarion call for Filipino Americans to push the envelope, by making their sentiments felt by voting for Jessica during the next couple or so Wednesday nights.
I am rooting for Jessica Sanchez, the eldest of three siblings, not only because she is a daughter of Filipino American mother Editha Sanchez of Bataan province in the Philippines and a Mexican American father Gilbert Sanchez but because she is gifted with a natural talent of a great singer.
I first came to notice her talent when I first heard Jessica interpret Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You,” hitting a high note that Season 3 American Idol finalist Jennifer Hudson could not reach when Ms. Hudson sang the same song as tribute to Houston during the Grammy Awards ceremony last February.
Since then, I was hooked on the Jessica Sanchez Fans Club phone bank!
But whatever happens at the finals, win or loss, Filipinos will always love the unassuming Jessica Sanchez.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

Chinese fishermen were being credited for allegedly discovering the Scarborough (Panatag or Bajo Masinloc or Huangyan) Shoal back during the Yuan Dynasty in 1279.
And the Shoal is 126 nautical miles west of Philippines’ Subic Port or about 600 nautical miles south of Guangzhou.
Granting without admitting that the Chinese fishermen made the discovery, did it grant these poachers ownership of this Shoal, described as a triangle-shaped chain of reefs and islands of mostly rocks that is 55 kilometers (34 miles) around with an area of 150 kilometers with a lagoon of 130 square kilometers and depth of 15 meters or 49 feet?
Because of its proximity to the Philippines, the Scarborough shoal could have been visited by native Filipino fishermen, who were known to be great seafarers but they had nobody to make the report of their find.
During those Medieval Ages, discovering a new shoal did not necessarily mean ownership of shoal. The discoverers had to follow some protocol, like notifying its owner and fighting for it and winning the fight to assert ownership.
That was how Spain colonized the Philippines: the Filipino chieftain Lapulapu killed Magellan, a European explorer, and Magellan’s aides. And the Europeans came back to subdue the natives, using the sword and the cross.?And the natives did not just give up their lands to the Spaniards in a silver platter either.
Seven hundred years prior to the Yuan Dynasty, ownership of uninhabited rocky lands and landmasses were asserted, using the Roman law, the cornerstone of Western civilization.
 
LAND CAUSED BY ALLUVIUM THAT ATTACHES TO STATE
Under the Roman law, when land areas in the neighborhood of the boundary of a state are changed, territory may be acquired by accretion. The land formed by alluvium (sediment deposited by flowing water) or in other case near the coast of a state, such land mass belongs to that state, where that land mass attaches.
Under the general principle of maritime and fluvial jurisdiction, “things of which the use is inexhaustible, such as the sea and running water, cannot be so appropriated as to exclude others from using these elements in any manner, which does not occasion a loss or inconvenience to the proprietor.” For instance, state can allow the use of sea lanes for innocent passage.
But jurisdiction of state initially extending the “open sea to a distance of three miles from the low-water mark” (in Van Bynkershoek’s “De Dominio Maris, 1702) under the principle that “territorial jurisdiction ends where effective force of arms ends (canon shot)” has been later extended to six-mile limit in 1914 by Italy and extended farther by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 at most to 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi).
Under UNCLOS, a state also has an exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including production of energy from water and wind. EEZ stretches from the seaward edge of the state’s territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from its coast. It may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit but not to exceed 350 nautical miles.
For this reason, it is ridiculous for China to even claim the Spratly Islands (Nansha), which are 163 miles away but within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’ EEZ. China is 1,000 miles away from Spratlys while Vietnam, which is also claiming the same, is more than 200 miles while Malaysia, which annexed Sabah although Malaysia is still paying its rent to the Sabah’s Philippine Sultan’s heirs, Brunei and Indonesia are said to be within their 200 EEZ.
 
RUTHLESS MIGHT IS RIGHT FOR CHINA
And China has refused to join the Philippines to settle their dispute before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Germany. It instead bullies the Philippines and other claiming countries into using its military might to come to bilateral meetings because China would be treading on a quicksand in ITLOS.
I don’t understand why China, which like the Philippines, are both signatories to the UNCLOS, does not want to avail of the ITLOS, the tribunal that hears the complaints of UNCLOS members.
Maybe China knows that the United States is not going to come to the aid of the Philippines when it opens fire on the under armed and ill-equipped Filipinos protecting Scarborough Shoal because it knows Article V. of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States provides, “For purposes of ARTICLE IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties (U.S. and the Philippines) is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories UNDER ITS JURISDICTION IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN (emphasis supplied), its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the PACIFIC.”
If I were Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, who would be holding a bilateral meeting on Monday (April 30) in Washington, D.C. with their counterparts, U.S. Department of State Sec. Hillary Clinton and Defense Sec. Leon Panetta, they should propose that the (MDT) be amended in such a way that the definition of Pacific Ocean should extend to the Western Philippine Sea.
I think, the U.S. is not going to abandon the Philippines not only because it will be a complete reversal of President Barack Obama’s plan to focus U.S.’s resources to Asia and the Pacific following the drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is also in the national interest of the U.S. to keep the international shipping lanes open that would surely be affected in case China repeats its murderous attack on the Filipinos, like what the over armed Chinese Navy did to helpless, under armed and under-equipped Vietnamese, who were massacred in 1988, while protecting a Paracel island. Sixty-four Vietnamese were killed and 61 more were missing and believed dead and some Vietnamese vessels were destroyed as shown in this video footage taken by the Chinese Navy. (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

‘’The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’’
 — Dick the Butcher in ‘’Henry VI,’’
PartII, act IV, Scene II, Line 73 of William Shakespeare
 
There are only very few Filipino American lawyers in the Chicago, Illinois community. But at the rate community lawyers are conducting their practice, this legal profession might become a thing of the past.
This year, Atty. Manny Aguja surrendered his law license when he became embroiled in a marriage fraud.
Two weeks ago, CBS Channel 2 TV broke the story that another Filipino American lawyer, a friend of mine, Alfonso S. Bascos, caused an elderly Caucasian American man with signs of severe dementia to sign a will and a trust never minding that Mr. Bascos placed himself in an unpleasant conflict-of-interest situation.
Any lawyer worth his salt should first go to the bottom of the truth by finding out if the trustee signing away his huge estate has the legal and medical (is he of sound mind) capacity to sign a will and a trust.
Maybe the lawyer should ask the trustee: “What is your name?” “How old are you?” What is the date today?” and “Do you know why you are here today?” before asking him if he knows what he is signing away?
If the trustee cannot answer these basic questions, the trustee should be turned over to the Cook County Public Guardian, who can take the will and trust to a Probate Court to decide the appointment of a successor trustee, executor, beneficiaries and residue beneficiaries.
Suddenly, the smarts of an inquisitive cross-examining trial lawyer totally deserted Mr. Bascos when he never fielded a question to Mr. Marshall F. Davies “whether or not he (the trustee, Marshall F. Davies) understood everything” Davies’ Filipino American caregiver Carmelita Pasamba was asking Mr. Bascso to do – to prepare a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), a will and a trust for Mr. Davies.
 
A WORTHLESS ESTATE DOES NOT NEED A LAWYER, ONLY A CAREGIVER
 
In a deposition last September, when James Burton, Cook County Public Guardian lawyer, asked Mr. Bascos if he inquired from Ms. Pasamba and Mr. Davies the worth of the estate of Mr. Davies, Mr. Bascos said, “no” because he (Mr. Bascos) did not have a concern that Ms. Pasamba was going to take advantage of Mr. Davies. Really?
But why would Mr. Bascos allow himself to be “retained as attorney for my Executor,” (Pasamba’s husband, Edgardo Pasamba), if Mr. Bascos did not have an idea of the worth of Mr. Davies’ estate? If Mr. Bascos knew that Mr. Davies’ estate was worth nothing, what is the need to retain an “attorney for the Executor” for?
And if Mr. Bascos did not prepare the trust, who would have benefited most for inserting as beneficiaries after Mr. Davies dies among others Jose Rizal Center, home of the Filipino American Council of Greater Chicago (FACC), of which Mr. Bascos is a director, for $5,000; FACC’s Seniors Program for another $5,000; FACC’s Health Care Program, for $5,000; FACC’s Free Legal Services established by Mr. Bascos himself, $5,000; and the FACC as one of the three residue beneficiaries of the estate aside from Ms. Pasamba and the Salvation Army?
In denying preparing the trust, Mr. Bascos pointed to Ms. Pasamba as the one, who listed all these FACC beneficiaries, which I am sure Ms. Pasamba did not know anything at all prior to her first contact with Mr. Bascos. After the trial of this case, we will know, who is telling the truth.
 
NIXON, BLAGOYEVICH ROLE MODELS?
 
Mr. Bascos emailed me, clarifying that “Cora Sopena (one of the two witnesses to the will; the other, Mr. Mauro Larracas, already died) has corrected her statement to you. You wrongly heard her statement. You quoted her “buhay pa pala” (so Mr. Davies still alive) referring to Davies. Her true statement was “buhay pa siya?” (Is Mr. Davies still alive?) it was a questioned (sic) to you. There is a big difference between those two.” (Mr. Bascos, however, did not explain the difference.) 
“Also, your statement in your article re: “ This is a black eye to the Filipino community. How can it be “a black to the eye to community” when the act is committed by a single individual. (sic) You were generalizing and editorializing. You were attributing the bad act of one individual as the act of the community that it sustained “black eye,” too. An analogy: Mr Robert Maddoff (sic), the trusted investment guro (sic) stole the billions of his investors money and was convicted, was it black eye to the whole American community? Certainly not.”
When Ms. Pasamba asked Mr. Davies to sign checks totaling $827,940.03 although Mr. Davies did not know anymore what he was signing away because of his severe dementia, Pasamba did not only destroy (put a black eye on) the unsullied reputation of Filipino caregivers in the mainstream community, it put into question whether future Filipino caregivers would still earn the trust of the mainstream community. And
Secondly, there is no “Robert Maddoff.” There is only Bernard “Ponzi scheme” Madoff.
If Mr. Bascos does not consider “Mr. Maddoff” a black eye to the whole American community, is he suggesting that President Richard Nixon and Gov. Rod Blagojevich (both lawyers) were choir boys and pride of the American community just like Manny Aguja is to the Filipino community? And so, Ms. Pasamba is Mother Theresa?
Thank God, “Mr. Maddoff” did not complete his law studies.
If Mr. Bascos will stick by this wayward value system, I would not blame William Shakespeare for suggesting: ‘’The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’’ (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

When I put up a 100,000-peso (about US$25,000 at about 4 pesos to a U.S. dollar parity) bounty for information that could lead to the solution of the disappearance of Tempo newsman Tim Olivarez in the early 80’s, The Rizal Metro Manila Tri-Media Association (Tri-Media) received plenty of leads but mostly false alarms.
The reason – tipsters were only after the bounty, hoping that members of the group of journalists covering Rizal and Metro Manila would call their bluffs.
As president of a newsmen’s group, I was able to suggest to then President Marcos to help us raise the 100,000-peso bounty when our group was inducted in Malacanang. But for some reason, despite the press release issued by Malacanang that the bounty would be released thru the Marcos Foundation, I never saw the color of that money.
Thankfully, nobody came forward with reliable information on Tim’s disappearance, which could have put our organization in an embarrassing bind.
Out of that fund-raising effort, though, our club was able to raise 25,000 pesos (US$6,250), which I left behind when I immigrated to Chicago. When I returned to Manila some ten years later, my fellow officer, Eddie T. Suarez, correspondent of the Manila Bulletin, informed me that members of the club decided to split the bounty from among themselves, instead of keeping it as seed money of the club that could be used if another member disappears into thin air.
While I was in Chicago, I learned that our principal suspect, Bobby “Bungo” Ortega, former officer of the dreaded PC Metrocom Strike Force, had vehemently denied having a hand in Tim’s disappearance. Mr. Ortega, who would become Baguio City mayor, was alleged to be a close relative of President Marcos, which easily made him untouchable during martial law. I could not even whisper to the ear of Mr. Marcos during our induction of Bobby’s involvement because I was afraid, I, too, would disappear like Tim.
BOBBY ORTEGA CALLED TEMPO
On the day, Tim Olivarez disappeared, Tim told me he was going to see Jose “Don Pepe” Oyson, a smuggling lord, that night. I told him I would go with him. But for some reason, I completely forgot all about our engagement that night. Olivarez would not be seen alive ever again. Two things would have happened if I kept Tim’s company: either Oyson would have been scared to kill us or both of us would have been killed.
Tim told me that when he broke a smuggling story carried out by Don Pepe, who was being protected by Bobby Ortega, Bobby called Tempo, looking for him. And it was popular crime reporter and columnist, Ruther D. Batuigas, Tim’s boss in Tempo, who happened to pick up Bobby’s call.
When the late Manila Bulletin columnist Lito Catapusan visited me in Chicago, he told me that his investigation showed that Tim’s body was dumped into the Manila Bay in Cavite with heavyweight and a string tied around his neck so his body would not float on the ocean.
With that brief experience of overseeing the fruitless search of Olivarez killers, I found out in Illinois and in other states, there is a nationwide non-profit organization called CrimeStopper, whose mission is to catch neighborhood criminals.
Backed by governors and state legislatures, this NGO (non-government organization) is able to raise funds, by allowing taxpayers to check-off a circle or a square that would give them option to donate certain amount to CrimeStopper.
CrimeStopper only offers a modest bounty of $1,000 for whoever could give authorities information that could lead to the arrest of a criminal.
 
SECRET IDENTITY OF THE TIPSTER IS THE KEY
And, I think, if CrimeStopper were adopted in the Philippines with Congress inserting an amendment into the Tax Code that could give Filipino taxpayers the ability to donate to the bounty to CrimeStopper, it would be a very effective means of catching neighborhood criminals by putting up a modest bounty of 50,000 pesos (US$1,190) per information on a criminal.
You know why? A small amount like the 30 pieces of silver Judas received for betraying Jesus will not create a feeding frenzy for people to actively look for criminals that would force the likes of Palawan Gov. Joel Reyes or General Jovito Palparan out of their hiding enclaves.
In this way, the criminals will be dropping their guards, which would make it easy for the police to catch them.
And CrimeStopper has perfected its ability to assure the tipster of criminal information of their safety: when they call CrimeStopper that could be set up in provinces, cities and towns in the Philippines, the caller will be given a secret code or number or a PIN (Personal Identification Number), which only the caller would know. CrimeStopper does  not know the identity of the caller.
If the criminal is arrested, the tipster can just call CrimeStopper and mention his code, number or PIN and the CrimeStopper could deposit the bounty or reward money to the bank or ATM account of the tipster. And the CrimeStopper staff are sworn to secrecy so as not blow the cover of the tipster. Just like the lottery jackpot winners, who are not publicly identified when they come to claim their prizes.
Of course, CrimeStopper will not stop the public from making huge donations, which would be perfect.
For instance, victims can offer bigger bounties for the arrest of the likes of Reyes and Palparan thru the clandestine means of assuring maximum protection of the identity of the tipsters.
Press organizations in the Philippines, whose members are being annihilated, should now start the ball rolling of setting up CrimeStopper in the Philippines to stop the impunity of killing their own ranks. Good luck! (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

“11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon  
seventy years. 12 But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land  of the Babylonians, for their guilt,” declares the LORD, “and will make it desolate forever.”?      
— Jeremiah 25:9-12
As the dwindling Filipino World War II veterans gather together to commemorate the 70 years of the Fall of Bataan this week, it reminds me of a Biblical quote when God punished the king of Babylon for holding the Jews in captivity.
Like the Jews, the surviving Filipino veterans must now be turning to the Bible for inspiration in their quest for recognition and justice after 70 long years. After all, the Fall of Bataan took place a week before Good Friday [April 8, 1942, April 9, 1942 Manila Time] under a massive offensive by the enemy’s 14th Army of Gen. Homma, which made the surrender of Bataan inevitable.
More than 60,000 Filipino and 15,000 American prisoners of war would be forced into the infamous Bataan Death March that was crucial to Japan’s effort to control the Southwest Pacific.?
Out of the more than 250,000 Filipino veterans, who answered the conscription order of President Roosevelt at the outbreak of war, the ageing and sickly veterans, ten of them dying a day, should now be down to less than 50,000.
Out of these remaining survivors, 24,000 have yet to see the light of day. Luke Perry, son-in-law of a Filvet and an advocate for Filipino veterans residing in Las Vegas, Nevada, hopes one of the United States senators would introduce a Senate version of H.R. 210 Filipino Veterans Fairness bill that would allow U.S. Veterans Affairs to accept benefits claim of these 24,00 Filvets even if their names are not found in the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri.
WILL SEN. AKAKA SIGN ON FILVET BILL?
 The bill introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA-12th) has attracted 90 co-sponsors but has been languishing on the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs since Feb. 18 last year.
On the other hand, a Senate version, S. 63, introduced by Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) has not drawn any co-sponsor although it has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs since Jan. 25 last year.  It requires the Secretary of the Army to determine the validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.
Mr. Perry said several volunteers are lobbying in Washington, D.C. to get H.R. 210 out of the committee and be discussed in a public hearing.
I will try to get Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) interested in this bill. Senator Akaka’s press secretary, Jesse Broder Van Dyke, told me Senator Akaka is retiring in January next year. As a consistent supporter of Filipino American issues, taking the cudgels for the Filipino veterans may find a soft spot in Senator Akaka’s heart.
But a son of a Filipino veteran, Father Prisco Entines believes the woes the Filipino veterans are facing boil down to the racist policies of the U.S. Congress and the White House towards the Filipinos.
Father Entines, a full-time advocate for the cause of the veterans, believes the flip-flopping classifications of the citizenship of the Filipinos by the U.S. Congress and the White House are all there is to blame.
He believes when the U.S. took control of the Philippines from Spain from 1899 up to 1946, Filipinos should have been considered U.S. Citizens, not U.S. Nationals, which is not found in the U.S. Constitution that provides only “native-born or naturalized citizen.” “U.S. national,” Father Entines believes, “is a legal fiction.”
During this period, Filipinos were holding U.S. Passports, as they were residents of a U.S. Commonwealth territory like Guam or Puerto Rico.
 
FILVETS HAVE “TRIPLE RIGHT” TO U.S. CITIZENSHIPS
 
If they were U.S. Citizens, the Filipino veterans would not have been receiving two-tier benefits (lump sum pays of $15,000 for U.S. Citizens and $9,000 for non-U.S. Citizens) under the ARRA Act of 2009. They would have enjoyed the G.I. Bills and other benefits.
Father Entines insists that Filipino veterans have “triple right” to U.S. Citizenship.
Under the Supreme Court ruling on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Congress has no right “to deprive such naturalized citizens of his citizenship, without his consent.”
When U.S. Congress reduced the status of Filipinos from U.S. Citizens to U.S. Nationals, it violated the U.S. Constitution, whose 14th amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (like U.S. Commonwealth of the Philippines) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The U.S. Congress never conducted a referendum in Commonwealth Philippines when it mass-stripped the Filipinos of their U.S. Citizenships as laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mackenzie v. Hare(239 U.S. 299 (1915)), which stated, “It may be conceded that a change of citizenship cannot be arbitrarily imposed, that is, imposed without the concurrence of the citizen.”
There are only a few grounds that U.S. citizenship can be taken away by committing certain “definite acts” – treason or desertion or residence abroad under certain circumstance. The Filipinos, who were native-born, were stripped of their U.S. Citizenships without committing any of these grounds.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824) held: “The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights (of U.S. Citizens). The simple power of the National Legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
The Filipino veterans, like ordinary Filipinos during the Commonwealth Philippines, became U.S. Citizens by birth (jus soli), akin to English common law of subjects, owing allegiance to the King, that was the basis of the U.S. 14th Amendment.
Second, even if the Commonwealth Filipinos were “U.S. nationals,” it follows that their children – the Filipino veterans – were also “U.S. Nationals” by blood (jus sanguinis).
And thirdly, when the Filipino veterans took their oath before the American flag, not the Philippine flag, during their induction into the U.S. Armed Forces of Far East, they were en route to becoming U.S. Citizens as they faced death penalty for desertion from the U.S. military. In effect, when these Filipino veterans pledged allegiance to a foreign power (U.S.), these Filipino veterans took a “definite act,” by implication, of renouncing their Philippine citizenships (if there was such status at that time), after the U.S. Consul processing their U.S. Citizenships was recalled to Washington, D.C., turning the Filipino veterans left behind into stateless citizens. (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

Many people are wondering why Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona is keeping everybody guessing if he is going to testify or not before the Senate trying him for alleged impeachable offenses.
Number 7 of Section 3 of Philippine Constitution’s Article XI for Accountability of Public Officers provides, “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”
If you read the first part of the complex sentence, it gives Mr. Corona the main reason why he should heed the call of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to come down and testify.
But if you go on reading the concluding clause, it gives Mr. Corona a pause. “What if I am convicted? What is my way out?”
So, as the tired cliché says, at the end of the day, Mr. Corona would be reluctant to testify if he feels that he would be convicted by the two-third votes (14) of the 23-member Senate.
It is very clear that Mr. Corona is about to reach a fork in the road. If he feels that the evidence against him is weak, then he could testify. So, he can further weaken the evidence, enhancing his acquittal if he gets nine votes.
Although the Senate impeachment is not a criminal trial, invoking his right to remain silent for fear of future criminal prosecution against double jeopardy, in case the Senate convicts him, remaining silent may not help his cause. The Senate could approve a motion, charging him with violation of anti-graft practices before the Sandiganbayan (trial court) and whatever he says in his testimony before the Senate could still be used by the Ombudsman during its subsequent criminal investigation against Mr. Corona.
But if he feels the evidence is overwhelming against him, then if he exercises his right to remain silent, it will not make any difference. I am not sure if he could still resign at this stage of the trial and prevent the Senate from coming up with its verdict. This is a gray area and the Philippine Senate could be breaking ground for whatever its ruling would be.
Like former Philippine Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, President Richard Nixon resigned before the full House of Representatives would impeach him while Speaker-elect Robert L. Livingston [R-La.] resigned on the day of his impeachment when his own extramarital affair was exposed. 
On the other hand, President Bill Clinton volunteered with a videotaped deposition to a Grand Jury investigation (in the case of the Philippines, probably the House Committee on Justice or a House-created Independent Investigative ad hoc committee) for perjury and obstruction of justice. The U.S. Senate found Clinton’s videotaped testimony sufficient, as if Clinton testified in person before the Senate, before acquitting Clinton of the impeachment charges.
 
THIS CHIEF JUSTICE INVOKED
HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

Let’s take a look at the first judge to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. New Hampshire State Chief Justice John Pickering invoked his right to remain silent during his trial.
Justice Pickering first served as a member of the New Hampshire state legislature before being elected as New Hampshire delegation to the Constitutional Convention. When he declined to serve as a delegate, he returned to private practice.
Pickering was appointed to the New Hampshire Superior Court and he eventually became its Chief Justice.
Because of his illness, there was an unsuccessful attempt to remove him as Chief Justice. He was later appointed to a low workload as judge of the Federal District Court of New Hampshire.
When he was no longer attending court, court staff wrote the First Circuit Court of Appeals to send a replacement because Pickering had gone insane.
Pickering returned and took over from his replacement. But Pickering adjourned the Court’s business and disappeared again the next day.
Pickering, however, could not be removed because he did not commit “high crimes nor misdemeanors” as required by the Constitution.
President Thomas Jefferson later sent evidence to the U.S. House of Representatives, who voted to impeach Pickering on charges of drunkenness and unlawful rulings. The U.S. Senate tried and convicted him of all charges, removing him from the bench.
In another case, where a son testified in the impeachment of his father, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana, Timothy Porteous said in the case of the bachelor party, including a lap dance in Las Vegas, Nevada that was hosted for him by two lawyer friends of his father, the two lawyers were longtime friends of his family, and were part of his life since he was a little boy.
“No disrespect for my father,” Timothy Porteous said, “it was done out of love for me.”
Porteous was also accused of lying to Congress during his judicial confirmation and filing for bankruptcy under a false name.
After months of hearings, the Senate closed the chamber for more than two hours to deliberate on his fate in December 2010. The Senate made its decision the following day in a solemn ceremonial vote in which senators sat at their desks and rose when called, saying “guilty” or “not guilty.”
Judge Porteous was later convicted on four articles of impeachment, making him the eighth federal judge in history to be removed by the Senate, which  also approved a motion barring him from holding future federal office.
House prosecutors said gambling and drinking problems led Judge Porteous to accept cash and other favors from attorneys and bail bondsmen with business before his court. (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

When American casino developer Stephen A. Wynn declined the invitation of his former partner Japanese billionaire Kazuo Okada for him to meet with Philippine President Noynoy Aquino (P-Noy) for a handshake agreement that will take a bite out of $33-billion gambling tourism in nearby Macau, Mr. Aquino should have asked full and truthful disclosures from his Philippine gaming-in-chief and classmate Cristino L. Naguiat, Jr. what really happened when Naguiat and his family and 13 subordinates were given a four-day royal hospitality at Wynn Macau hotel resorts last September.
Aside from denying that his entourage was given $50,000 shopping money by Mr. Okada, Mr. Naguiat even lied to President Aquino that he was in Macau as a “casino operator” and not as a “casino regulator.”
How can Mr. Naguiat represent himself as a “casino operator” when he does not own a casino in the Philippines? If he was there as a “casino operator,” why did he not register his name at the front desk of Wynn Macau and let the name of “Suzanne Bangsil,” wife of Rogelio Bangsil, official of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), to register her name on his behalf?
In gambling parlance, talo ka na umiiwas pusoy ka pa? (You already lost out yet you are still pretending to have the upper hand?)
Did you, Mr. Naguiat, also tell President Aquino that because you enjoyed Mr. Okada’s hospitality so much you returned with another group to the same hotel two weeks later only to be told that your accommodation was being downgraded from your prior “Villa 81,” $6,000-a-day accommodation? I wonder if you were fetched at the airport by a Rolls Royce again? As a popular beer commercial would say, “so good, ayos na ang kasunod!”
 (One good round deserves another!)
WORN OUT HIS WELCOME
 Isn’t the downgrade an indication that you wore out your welcome??By denying the $50,000 shopping money, Mr. Naguiat had turned liars out of the staff of Mr. Okada.
I don’t blamed Mr. Naguiat for putting himself in this difficult dilemma. If he admits receiving the $50,000 from Mr. Okada, Mr. Naguiat would have to extricate himself from violating the pre-martial law Philippine Republic Act No. 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Instead of explaining to the President the motive of Mr. Wynn for questioning Mr. Okada’s excessive hospitality extended to him and his party, Mr. Naguiat blamed Mr. Wynn for dragging him in Wynn’s corporate fight with Mr. Okada.
Mr. Naguiat did not tell the President that Mr. Wynn is the latest casino operator in Macau who could be investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Security Exchange Commission for violation of the Foreign Corrupt and Practices Act.
Ayaw ni Mr. Wynn madamay sa imbestigasyon! (Mr. Wynn does not want to be dragged into the mix.)
Only last February, Sheldon Adelson, owner of Las Vegas Sands, Mr. Wynn’s major rival, was being investigated for potential illegal dealings with a public official as well as a tie to an organized crime figure in Macau. Adelson owns Sands Macau, the first of three casinos run by Adelson.
A big donor to the Republican campaign (he donated $10-million to Newt Gingrich’s campaign) and a likely donor to Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination, Adelson’s donation to the Republican campaign might prove embarrassing if he would be indicted for violation of Foreign Corrupt and Practices Act (FCPA) in November.
Only recently, President Barack Obama returned a large donation after it was reported that the donor’s brother is a fugitive from U.S. for drug and fraud charges.
So, Mr. Naguiat, it is not too late to return that $50,000 as Mr. Obama and Sec. Hillary Clinton did. The money that was given to you and your subordinates is too big to fit in a “red envelop” called “Lai see” by Chinese or pakimkim by Filipinos. Turn the “tuwid na daan” (straight path) anti-corruption slogan of P-Noy into reality: return that “pasalubong” or “pabaon” given to you by Mr. Okada – return the $50,000! You will never know what Mr. Okada will expect from you in return! Filipinos will be proud of you.
The United States government has stepped up enforcement of the FCPA, doling out $1.8 billion in sanctions to 23 companies in 2010. And the U.S. SEC announced settlement of violations to the Act totaling $251.78 million.
UNTYING THE MESSY GEORGIAN KNOT
And Mr. Wynn does not want to be violating FCPA and coughing up millions to SEC!
Mr. Wynn had earlier accused Mr. Okada of bribing Mr. Naguiat and other PAGCOR officials with some $110,636 in hospitality in order to curry favor with Philippine government officials, who would be regulating the US$2.3-billion casino resorts Mr. Okada is building in the southern portion of the Manila Bay’s reclaimed area.
And Mr. Wynn does not want to have a hand with the $110,636 bribery!
If I were Mr. Naguiat I would also follow-up another complaint raised by Mr. Wynn in the report to him by
former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh that Mr. Naguiat’s predecessor, Mr. Efraim C. Genuino had built himself a golden parachute before Genuino was removed from PAGCOR by crafting the corporate structure of Mr. Okada that will let Mr. Okada own 60% of a Philippine-owned company in violation of the Philippine Constitution that limits foreign owners to 40%.
Mr. Okada owns AGA Philippines, Inc. and Aruze USA, Inc. with Mr. Genuino as one of the dummy company owners.
If Mr. Naguiat will not question this corporate structure, he better recommend to the Philippine Congress first to amend the Philippine Constitution that will let foreigners own 60% of Philippine companies before Mr. Okada opens for business his casino empire in the Philippines.
According to the Freeh report, Mr. Okada has three principal Philippine corporations – Tiger Resort, Leisure and Entertainment, Inc., Eagle I Landholdings, Inc. and Eagle II Holdco, Inc. – which are “closely intertwined with Rodolfo Soriano, Paolo Bombase and Manuel M. Camacho,” who have numerous ties with Mr. Genuino.
With regard to Eagle II Holdco, Inc., as late as 2010, Platinum Gaming and Entertainment (Platinum) had acquired 60% of its shares. According to Philippine SEC records, Rodolfo Soriano controlled 20% of Platinum at the time of incorporation. Mr. Soriano was described by Atty. Camacho as the “bag man” of Mr. Genuino and a former PAGCOR consultant and respondent in “PAGCOR referrals.”
Mr. Bombase, an officer, director and nominal shareholder of Eagle I Landholding, Inc. and Eagle II Holdco, Inc., has 1.25% share of Ophiuchus Real Properties Corp., which is 15% owned by a Philippine company named SEAA Corp, which is family-owned and controlled by Mr. Genuino.
The Philippine Congress should step up the plate and untie this messy, if not stinky, Georgian Knot! (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

Despite the common stands taken by Philippine Senate President and concurrent Senator-Judge Chief Juan Ponce Enrile and Senate-Judge legal heavyweight Miriam Defensor Santiago that there are differences in the Impeachment Trial between the Philippines and United States, there is very good chance that there are also big similarities.
I am referring to a clause on both the Philippines and the United States Constitutions that provides, “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office (U.S. version has additional ‘of honor, Trust or Profit’) under the Republic of the Philippines (in the U.S., of course, ‘United States’), but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, (U.S. version has “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment), according to law.”
Because of this striking similarity of the constitutional clause, Chief Justice Renato Corona can heave a sigh of relief if he were convicted by the Senate because he might still get some form of redemption.
Just ask incumbent U.S. Rep. Alcee Lamar Hastings (Dem.-Fla.), the first U.S. federal judge to be removed by the U.S. Senate as judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after being impeached by the House of Representatives by a near unanimous vote of 413-3 for bribery and perjury.
Hastings was later convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate
The U.S. Senate had the option to forbid Mr. Hastings from ever seeking federal office again but did not exercise the option.
 
COMEBACK KID
So, Hastings mounted a political comeback by running for Secretary of State of Florida, campaigning on a platform legalizing casinos. In a three-way Democratic primary, he placed second with 313,758 votes, or 33%, behind newspaper columnist Jim Minter’s 357,340 votes (38%) and ahead of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon John Paul Rogers’ 275,370 votes (29%). In the runoff, which saw a large dropoff in turnout, Hastings lost to Minter in a landslide, 300,022 votes to 146,375. Minter would go on to lose the general election to incumbent Republican James C. Smith.
Not one to easily give up, Hastings ran again and won a U.S. House of Representative position in 1992, representing Florida’s 23rd district.
His “Prodigal Son” political backstory has a very unique twist.
In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a near-unanimous vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. ?The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing two votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused Hastings of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, voting to convict his fellow party member, and Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, voting to acquit.
 
HASTINGS WANTED TO BE TRIED BY FULL SENATE, NOT COMMITTEE
Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.
Sporkin found some “crucial distinctions” between Nixon’s case and Hastings’s, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually “tried” his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin’s ruling was vacated and Hastings’s conviction and removal were upheld.
If the Philippine Senate would vote to convict Corona in one of the seven articles of impeachment but would not prevent him from ever occupying any public office, Mr. Corona can always run for the 2013 Senatorial Elections, like Rep. Hastings. If he tops the 2013 senatorial elections, sky is the limit for him. Depending on his handlers, Corona can become the opposition standard bearer in 2016 en route to become the William Howard Taft of the Philippines.
Mr. Taft, Governor-General of the Philippines from 1900 to 1904, would later become Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after becoming the 27th President of the U.S. In fairness to Taft, Mr. Taft was never impeached, like Mr. Corona.
Another U.S. President was able to hold another branch of government, President James Polk, the 11th President, who became the 17th Speaker of the House of Representatives, a feat being eyed by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who could also become the Speaker of the House if she surmounts the mountains of plunder cases being poured on her by President Noynoy Aquino. President Polk, though, was charged with starting a war in violation of the Constitution but not graft, like GMA’s.
Wake up CJ Corona and GMA from your dreams! (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

A story in the Manila Bulletin last Tuesday (Jan. 31) of a woman serving 18 years in jail for a minor (misdemeanor) violation of (Manila) City Ordinance 1638 commonly known as vagrancy is something that should shake the conscience of the members of  Philippine Congress.
A mere lip service, saying that Manila Judge Amalia Gumapos-Ricablanca had ordered Susan Zulueta released from prison because Zulueta overstayed in prison for 18 years for a violation that called for maximum penalty of 30 days imprisonment is not enough. ?
If only Philippine President Aquino will blink his eyes from the impeachment proceedings against Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona and focus his attention on a pending House Bill 1138 filed by Albay Rep. Al Francis Bichara that “provides an indemnification of a measly P60,000 (U.S.$1,428.00) a year for an inmate, who was found innocent or acquitted of crimes but have already served his sentence, Judge Gumapos-Ricablanca could have appended in her order for the City of Manila to pay Zulueta P1,080,000 (US$25,714) upon release.?
When Zulueta is released, where and how is she going to recoup the income that she would have earned for all those 18 years that she unfairly spent in jail??
Of course, the P60,000 is pittance but it is a start. Philippine Congress should peg, if not double, the amount to an equivalent amount that a Philippine jail spends to keep an inmate.?In 2007, the Philippine government spends an average of P40,189 or (US$956.88) per inmate per year. So, if you multiply P40,189 by 18 years, Zulueta should be compensated with P723,402 (US$17,223) as payment for her wrongful incarceration for 18 years, which is as close as the Bichara bill could get.
PH COMPENSATION IS PITTANCE
The compensation measure is peanuts. But where will the Philippine Congress get this enormous amount of money? Very easy. Get it from the budget departments in charge of the employee, who committed the wrongful incarceration of the inmate.?For instance, if the wrongful incarceration was the fault of the Manila policeman, the payment for the wrongful incarceration will be taken out from the Department of Interior and Local Government or shared by the Mayor’s or Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman’s or Governor’s office budget. ?
If the wrongful incarceration was the fault of the City Fiscal or Prisons officials, the compensation will be taken out of the Department of Justice. And if the wrongful incarceration was the fault of the presiding judge, the compensation will taken out of the budget of the Philippine Supreme Court.?By penalizing the Department that oversees the government employee, who caused the wrongful incarceration, it will make the offending Department employee more accountable and will be more careful in executing his duties.
It is a given that government officials overseeing the inmates are merely administering justice in good faith (not in good pay), but some inmates are wrongfully convicted because these officials ‘take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence. DNA testing have uncovered evidence of fraud or misconduct by prosecutors or police departments,” according to New York City-based Innocence Project.
 
“JAILHOUSE SNITCH” OR PAID WITNESS ALLOWED TO TESTIFY
 
Sometimes an informant or a “jailhouse snitch” or a paid witness are allowed to testify that were uncovered by DNA testing.
An ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyer, who failed to investigate properly, call witnesses or prepare for trial has led to conviction of innocent people. Shrinking funds and limited access to resources for public defenders and court-appointed attorneys only make situations worse. ?According to Innocence Project, among the main causes of wrongful imprisonments are “eyewitness misidentification, which is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned thru DNA testing.”
The arrival of DNA evidence in American courtrooms in the late 1980s and 1990s changed the criminal justice system forever. It has become a manna from heaven for innocent inmates. The widely accepted strength of DNA testing has led experts to call into question the reliability of other forms of forensics. Where these older forms of forensic science could indicate that someone might have committed a crime, DNA can show whether someone is actually guilty or innocent.
 If the evidence in the Vizconde Massacre was not mishandled by the NBI, there would not have been controversy following the acquittal of some of the defendants in the case. Hubert Webb and five others, who were freed after languishing in jail for 15 years, should have also been compensated under the Bichara bill.?In more than 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivering outright confessions or pleading guilty. These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences.
False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud had also led to wrongful conviction in several states in the United States. Some experts lacking the requisite knowledge embellish findings, confident that they will not be caught since the lawyer and the judge have no background in the relevant science.
And the penalty will go off the roof if the inmate is serving life imprisonment, where maintaining a prisoner is costlier.?In Florida, the average cost of keeping an inmate is $55 per day or $20,108 a year.?Most of the daily cost of incarcerating an inmate is spent on security and medical services. The remaining 20% or so is spent on feeding, clothing and educating inmates, including mental health and dental care.
In California, an annual cost of keeping an inmate is $47,102, an average annual income of an American public or private employee. ?President Aquino, what you waiting for? Certify as urgent the Bichara bill, by increasing the budget for keeping the inmates and by increasing the budget for wrongful incarceration! (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

“Kung sino ang malapit sa kalan ang siyang nauulingan.”?  (Whoever is near the pan gets the pan’s black coating.)
  —  Filipino proverb

With the attention of the Filipino people riveted on the impeachment of Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona, I am going to digress for now from it by discussing a graft case that was lost from the radar of the fickle-minded Filipinos.?
The Blue Ribbon committee investigation conducted by the Philippine Senate last year did not really attract my attention until someone (a Chicago community activist, MJ Singson) forwarded me the 160-page result of the investigation.
I thought it was just one of the run-of-the-mill investigations conducted by the Philippine Senate that should be treated as a spam.
But in reading the report chaired by Sen. Teopisto “TG” Guingona, III, I noticed how Rosario Uriarte, former vice chair and general manager of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, painted herself as stupid and moronic in stealing millions of pesos from the Filipino taxpayers and how the gullible former President and now detained Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) approved such fund requisitions in brazen fashions.
If the court (Sandiganbayan) will convict GMA and Uriarte of unbailable plunder that calls for maximum penalty of a life in prison, it will not be surprising. They are also facing technical malversation charges before the Ombudsman.
If GMA denies ever pocketing those millions, she would still be liable under the principle of command responsibility for losing those millions under her watch.
Uriarte and GMA are believed to have pocketed 244-million pesos (US$1.8-M) from PCSO.
If GMA feels that she is being “persecuted” by the Aquino administration, she should think again. If GMA were smart, she should have fired and sent Uriarte to jail after a few times that Uriarte presented her carbon copy memoranda, seeking authorizations to withdraw money from the PCSO.
GMA COULD NOT DENY “SMOKING GUNS”
 But by affixing her signatures to the
requisitions, GMA just provided the “smoking guns” to the conspiracy.
Even granting that Uriarte faked GMA’s signatures on those memoranda, if GMA were on top of the situation, she should be able to stop cold the unwarranted raids of the PCSO treasury by getting feedback or intelligence from the people she trusted in the PCSO.
If GMA could not even put a trusted person in such graft-ridden agency as the PCSO that was entirely her undoing.
GMA should not have waited three years for Uriarte to bleed the PCSO dry with 325-million pesos (US$7.7-million).
After learning some ideas from PCSO predecessor in 2000 under the term of my friend, former President Joseph Estrada, Uriarte perfected the art of securing monies from the PCSO and never got tired doing so.
The template letter from the Feb. 21, 2000 PCSO Chair Rosario Lopez first secured 5-million pesos (US$11,94.00) citing the need for “confidential/intelligence funds” (CIF’s) to conduct “current investigation of medicines with Botika ng Masa labels of the PCSO” when they ended up for sale in the commercial market. “Since investigation on the matter had to be done in utmost secrecy lest the image and credibility of the project and the participating government hospitals be put in question by the media,” there was a need for the multi-million-peso funding.
Lopez also cited “instances where PCSO ambulances were used for commercial purposes, and even as ‘getaway vehicle and in transporting prohibited drugs;’” and syndicates, pretending to be from PCSO and talking to some unwitting victims into depositing certain amounts to a bank account after being assured that they won the lottery.
“For essentially the same purposes,” the Senate report said, “it is, however, mind-numbingly shocking that for the years 2008 to 2010, the pot for PCSO’s CIF contained 325-million pesos (US$7.7-Million).”
URIARTE HAD NOTHING
TO SHOW FOR 325-M PESOS
What was galling was that after withdrawing these millions, Uriarte could not even show any accomplishment for the expenses. Not even a liquidation receipt, nor a court case that would indicate that PCSO broke up or caught the syndicates involving “Botika ng Masa,” PCSO ambulance drug traffickers, and PCSO’s alleged bank scammers.
Uriarte might have released the 17-million pesos (US$404,000.00) as “blood money” for an OFW. But such release was “contrary to the purposes for which these funds were requested and approved.”
?PCSO even outspent Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines “2.3.57 times larger” in confidential and intelligence funds although ISAFP’s main task was to conduct intelligence work while PCSO’s principal mandate was to spend for charitable causes. In 2010, PCSO spent 160-million (US$3.8-M) in CIF’s while ISAFP budget was 63-million pesos (US$1.5-M) for intelligence.
But in 2009, Uriarte’s idiotic letters requested 70-million pesos (US$1.6-M) and 37-million pesos (US$880,000) for “bomb threat, kidnapping, terrorism and destabilization” and “bilateral and security relation.” But Uriarte could not even explain to the Senators what the payments were for.
Uriarte used the same excuses when she requested during the 2010 election year 47-million pesos (US$1.l-million) and 90-million pesos (US$2.1-million).?Checks to these “Special Funds” released “By Special Authority of the President” were made out in the name of Uriarte as “Special Disbursing Officer,” not the treasurer of PCSO.
Aside from intelligence funds, the Senate also found PCSO liable for excessive public relations/advertising spending (7.3-billion pesos or US$173-M from 2001 to 2010) as a case was filed before the Ombudsman against PCSO’s PR manager Manuel C. Garcia, for extorting 40% commissions from ad solicitors and Garcia could have amassed 1.5-billion (US$35-M); for leasing equipment for US$148-million, instead of buying the equipment for US$25-Million; questionable STL (small town lottery) remittances, ambulance donations and co-mingling of funds; questionable Contractual Joint Venture Agreement rubber-stamped by Uriarte, PCSO Directors Jose Taruc V, Ma. Fatima A.S. Valdes, Raymundo Roquero and Manuel Morato; donations of vehicles to members of the Catholic Church (in violation of separation of church and state); possible conflicts of interests in relation to the properties of former PCSO chair and concurrent board member, Manuel Morato after receiving 70-million pesos (US$1.6-M) as majority stock holder of TF ventures; and possible election offenses committed by Manuel Morato. (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)