Nani Perez, Mark Jimenez, IMPSA and a can of worms

UPDATED: It started when the Merceditas was again reminded for the nth time, by Frank Chavez this time, about Nani Perez's scam and IMPSA. The Date of this article was Jan. 5 2007:

OMBUDSMAN Merceditas Gutierrez was accused yesterday of sleeping on the job after she failed to deliver on her promise to resolve pending criminal complaints against former Justice Secretary Hernando "Nani" Perez before the end of 2006.

Former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, a complainant against Perez, said Gutierrez has apparently developed immunity to criticisms about her snail-paced action on complaints against individuals allied with the Arroyo administration.

"As usual, the Ombudsman is sleeping on the job. Our problem is that it is not a short nap but a long slumber. The callousness of the Office of the Ombudsman is too thick even for public opinion. Kapalan talaga ng mukha," Chavez said.

Chavez has accused Perez of receiving $1 million to secure a government guarantee for IMPSA, the company involved in the rehabilitation of the Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan hydroelectric plant, weeks after he was named justice secretary after President Arroyo seized power in 2001.

Actually, Nani Perez received $2 Million, Frank.

But anyway, the administration after so many years of sitting on the Nani Perez IMPSA case, finally bigla na lang kinasuhan ni Ombudsman Gutierrez si Nani 3 days later.

OMBUDSMAN Merceditas Gutierrez yesterday ordered the indictment of former Justice Secretary Hernando "Nani" Perez and three others on charges of graft, extortion and falsification of public documents based on a complaint filed by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez.

Charged along with Perez were his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and businessman Ernest Escaler.

Gutierrez said evidence gathered by Ombudsman investigators established the allegation of Jimenez that Perez extorted $2 million from him.

"Documents obtained by our investigators from Hong Kong and Swiss banks confirmed they (the accused) were the recipients of the $2 million from Jimenez," the Ombudsman said.

"He (Perez) may have been my former boss but I have to apply the law," she said.

There are two things wrong here.

Number one, this ain't just a $2 million bribery scandal. It's a $14 Million payola, and Nani who signed the IMPSA agreement four days after Edsa dos, only got $2 Mil.

Second, I have to laugh when Mercy Gutierrez about "applying the law" against her former boss.

I do recall 3 years ago a DOJ undersecretary by the name of Merceditas Gutierrez who was the subject of this Sept. 2003 article here. Back then, she was known as Miss Stonewall. The Internets do not forget, Mercy. lol.

Serge hits DOJ, DFA non-cooperation in Swiss probe

In his privileged speech Thursday, Sen. Serge Osmeña said the Senate should look into the series of omissions committed by the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Justice.

He then asked the Senate leadership to refer to the report of the Department of the Public Prosecutor of Switzerland to the Senate committee on government corporation particularly on the failed response of the DFA and the DOJ to its request.

According to Osmena, Justice Undersecretary Merceditas Gutierrez was quoted as saying that the DOJ would not provide any assistance to the Swiss investigation.

"When we would have thought that any right-thinking God-fearing Filipino prosecutor would have jumped for joy at the gratuitous assistance given by the Swiss, I am absolutely flabbergasted. The Swiss authorities must have been floored. Here is our own justice official obstructing justice in the most arrogant manner," Osmena said.

In addition, Osmena questioned the DFA officials for not informing the Senate about the ongoing Swiss investigation into the Perez bribery case despite having received a copy of the report on April 15.

"The Swiss prosecutor's report was received by the DFA on April this year. In spite of the DFA's knowledge of the ongoing investigation, the Senate was not notified much less given a copy of this report. It was only when the existence of the report was leaked to me that I caused the Senate to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the DFA to furnish the Senate with a copy of the report," Osmena added.

The Swiss government in its report particularly sought the help of the two departments to provide legal assistance especially on the pertinent documents and confirmations on the case.

It will be recalled that Perez was accused of bribery and having secret bank accounts abroad containing deposits obtained from money laundering activities. The report revealed that Perez opened several bank accounts abroad through his wife and some trusted men.

It's nice though na after all these years, ngayon lang kinasuhan ng Ombudsman si Nani. Would have been nicer though if she acted more quickly. Time is of the essence kasi eh. The longer you dilly dally around, the more time you give Nani to cover their tracks and destroy evidence.

Anyways, I believe the motive and timing behind filing charges against Nani Perez only now is to make IMPSA a non-issue in the 2007 elections, and to make it look like there doing something about corruption.

But it will take a long time before the case is settled (probably after the 2007 elections) and it will be settled in the admin and Nani's favor if the administration wins. Just like what happened to bolante and ricardo manapat and the garci boys.

The Inquirer Editorial thinks the admin is trying to contain the issue, which I agree:

First, why are Perez and his co-conspirators not being charged with plunder? Even now, when one dollar brings in less than P49, $2 million is still worth almost double the P50 million in illegal wealth a public official must amass in order to be charged with plunder.

RA 7080 says that any public official who amasses ill-gotten wealth amounting to P75 million (later reduced to P50 million by RA 7659) "through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" is guilty of plunder. Mark Jalandoni, an assistant ombudsman, has been quoted as saying that Perez et al. could not be charged with plunder since the $2-million payoff constituted a single incident. What Jalandoni is saying--and his boss obviously agrees--is that Perez had to demand and accept the bribe in at least two installments to be guilty of plunder. In other words, an official who steals P50 billion in one blow commits a lesser crime than one who steals P50 million in a series of illegal transactions in the eyes of the law.

If the anti-graft prosecutors really believe a person has to commit a combination of criminal acts before he can be accused of plunder, they have all those, in the charge sheet they are preparing. Graft, extortion and falsification of public documents--the very charges they are bringing against Perez et al.--cannot be construed as a single act.

Such a cockeyed view of the law only tends to confirm suspicions that the anti-graft agency does not really want to see Perez behind bars. And why? Because if he is sent to prison, he could start singing and drag some very important persons there, too.

And that is the last thing the Office of the Ombudsman apparently wants. It bears noting that Jalandoni was careful to point out that the charges they would file against Perez have nothing to do with the Impsa contract. Meaning, the case would begin and end with Perez and those who cooperated with him in laundering the money. For the Ombudsman and the Arroyo administration, containment is the name of the game.

The question is: Will Perez just play along?

MORE: Here's how the $14 Million dollar payola is divided among thieves:

Sept. 5, 2003

Jimenez, in his privileged speech at the House last year, claimed actually releasing $14 million in kickbacks in exchange for the approval of the IMPSA power deal. The Manila lawmaker was later extradited to the United States to face charges of mail fraud and illegal campaign contribution.

The IMPSA contract was approved four days after President Arroyo assumed the presidency in January 2001.

Of the $14-million bribe, Jimenez claimed $2 million went to Perez, $1 million “for the boys” and $4 million to Malacañang “residents.” The remaining $7 million remains unaccounted for.

Sino yung "Malacanang Residents" ng naipasa ang IMPSA deal? Sino yung "for the boys" na tinutukoy dito? At saan napunta yung remaining $7 Mil na "unaccounted" for?

UPDATE: Heh.

I was told that when Lacson asked Jimenez about the unaccounted part of their $14 million, the later replied, “pabayaan mo na yun.”

Alam mo na yun.

Tee hee... kaya pala ang daming perang panggastos at ipinamimigay ni Mark Jimenez. tatakbo kaya si Mr. "Hulog ng Langit"? He's even tried to hijack Raul Roco's Aksyon Demokratiko party.

The problem with this partisan ombudsman is that she forgot na it was a $14 million payola, and not just $2 million. trying to contain the investigation to just nani's $2 million bribe may be futile.

UPDATE: More commentaries and Observations from Ernie Maceda:

With the filing of charges for graft, extortion, falsification of public documents and money laundering involving $2 million in a Swiss bank against former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler, several implications come to the fore:

First, that the trail of super corruption of the GMA administration started just three days after GMA assumed the presidency on Jan. 21, 2001.

Second, that contrary to the charge hurled at him, detained President Joseph “Erap” Estrada who steadfastly refused to approve this $478-million Impsa-Argentina contract was not the corrupt President they pictured him to be. A corrupt President would have jumped at accepting this $14- million bribe offered by Impsa.

Third, former Rep. Mark Jimenez must now also reveal who got the rest of the $14-million bribe offered or $12 million. There are reports that at least $5 million went to Malacañang.

Fourth, how many affidavits against Erap were signed because of the importuning of Perez? And was the filing of plunder charges against Erap motivated by a scheme to extort money from Erap allies and cronies in exchange for not being included in the plunder case which is non-bailable?

Fifth, that officials of Impsa-Argentina as well as Napocor must also be charged for their participation in such contract disadvantageous to the government. When a contract is secured through payment of a huge bribe, corresponding amounts are given “for the boys” down the line. Reports say $1 million was “for the boys.”

Sixth, Rep. Mark Jimenez must now reveal what participation, if any, the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo had in this transaction. He was reported to have gone to Hong Kong at or around the date the transaction was finalized in Hong Kong.

Seventh, assuming that in such major case such as this, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had conversations with GMA about the case, why did GMA finally give the go-signal to file the case? And how will Nani Perez take this? Will he strike back at GMA?

Eighth, congratulations must be extended to former Solicitor General Frank Chavez, then Rep. Willie Villarama and the Ombudsman investigating team headed by then Deputy Ombudsman Margarito Gervasio and Director Jose de Jesus for succeeding in having these charges filed.

Ninth, former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo must now explain why he failed to approve the filing of the charges against Perez et al. which were long pending on his desk. Did it cause his resignation?

Tenth, lawyer Pancho Vilaraza must now reveal what role he played in this case.

Eleventh, the filing of these charges signals the end of Nani Perez’s political career. He was planning to run for Congress in his old and district seat in Batangas.

Twelfth, Gutierrez has recovered part of her credibility with this decision. She can regain more if she expedites the filing of the cases against Joc-Joc Bolante as well as other generals involved in the comptroller’s scams with Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia. Gutierrez must now investigate the AFP procurement contracts now being detailed by a special report of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and by exposés in Newsbreak magazine.

More from the Tribune Editorial. Shows us how vile and corrupt nani perez really is:

It is no secret that Perez, who was then Justice secretary, threatened several friends and officials with plunder charges as Estrada’s co-accused, if they either refused to testify against Estrada or refused to give Perez the payoffs he demanded.

That Gloria has nothing with which to pin Estrada with the crimes leveled against him can be shown by the fact that, in the six years she has been in the presidential office, there is not one single graft-marred contract Estrada or his officials signed during his term.

Estrada had been in office since June 20, 1998 up till Jan. 20, 2001, yet not a single contract tinged with corruption has been unearthed by Gloria after six years out of the presidential office.

Gloria started in office in 2001 and immediately started on her plunder, reeking with unbelievable graft and corruption even before she got into the presidential office.

It should have been fairly easy for Gloria to dig up whatever dirt there was under the Estrada regime, since she was in power and position. Yet there has not been any evidence presented of this “corruption” in Estrada’s regime.

Not even the charges of plunder have been proved by the prosecution, despite having some Estrada officials as prosecution witnesses, as exemplified by former SSS president, Chuck Arrellano, and GSIS president Federico Pascual. As for the testimony of Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson, even Gloria and her Edsa II cohorts, including the bishops, knew it to be complete lies and perjury. Chavit’s testimony was ripped apart during the defense team’s turn.

But even as the Ombudsman finally filed charges against Perez, his wife, Rosario Arceo, his brother-in-law, Ramon Arceo and his money laundering conduit, Ernest Escaler, Nani and company were still spared, and in a sense, are still being protected by Gloria and her Ombudsman. There was no charge of plunder leveled against him and his cohorts, despite the fact that the amount involved is way over the plunder threshold, which is P50 million. This means that Nani will be able to post bail, unlike Estrada who continues to languish in detention.

Lamely, the Ombudsman claimed that this $2 million involved was a single act. It wasn’t and the Ombudsman’s probers know it.

Gutierrez claimed it took some six years for the charges to be filed against Nani, since the evidence was still being investigated.

It took the Ombudsman, under Gloria’s regime, less than four months to file plunder charges against Estrada, have him arrested and detained and has come up empty by way of solid evidence that would stand up in court. But when it came to Nani Perez, it took an inordinately long time for the Ombudsman — three of them — to file the charges, and watered down too.

All it really shows is persecution for Estrada and his allies and continued protection for Gloria and her allies.

Read this too from Ninez Cacho Olivares.