Palace to retain official accused of extortion

Manila Times

Makati

The palace is not passing judgment yet on National Food Authority (NFA) administrator Arturo Juan who has been accused of extorting P15mn from a businessman.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte challenged rice trader Jojo Soliman to prove his allegations that Juan demanded P15mn from him in exchange for the dropping of charges against him and reopening of his padlocked warehouse. Soliman was accused of mixing animal feed with imported rice.

Soliman, in his sworn statement submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) claimed that Juan and his assistant, lawyer Patricia Galang, called him up to ask P15mn. Juan reportedly told Soliman that P5mn of the money will go the interior secretary Mar Roxas while another P5mn will be given to president assistant on food security Francis Kiko Pangilinan. The remaining P5mn will be Juan’s share.

The rice trader claimed that he deposited P10mn in two separate bank accounts, while P5mn was placed inside a paper bag and left under a table in a restaurant in Makati City.

Soliman claimed that he has deposit slips to prove that he did deposit the money.

But the palace said such claims are not enough to prove Juan’s guilt.

“As for the bank documents, he [Soliman] should be able to prove that the account numbers where he made such deposits really belong to those people he is accusing of receiving payoffs. The deposit slips can’t be sufficient,” Valte, a lawyer, pointed out.

“You need to prove that the money went to the people you are accusing. The investigators will have their methods to verify these documents. We’ll wait for the results of the investigation,” she said.

“This [investigation] is a chance for former NFA administrator Juan to refute the allegations against him and present his evidence as well,” Valte added.

Juan was appointed to his post only in June this year. He submitted a courtesy resignation days after Soliman made his allegations, but it was rejected by Pangilinan.

Pangilinan expressed belief that the allegations against Juan were unfounded but he vowed to co-operate in the investigation of the NBI.

The supreme court cannot forever dodge a congressional inquiry on the use of its Judicial Development Fund (JDF), the palace warned on Saturday.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte made the statement three days after supreme court deputy court administrator Raul Villanueva refused to answer queries on the JDF, citing a letter from chief justice Lourdes Sereno that the high court will stay mum on the issue since Malacanang’s motion for reconsideration on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is still pending.

The JDF is sourced from the docket and other legal fees paid by party litigants, among other sources. It should finance the cost of living allowance of court employees (80%) and purchase of office equipment and other facilities (20%). Its disbursement is solely dependent on the chief justice.

“The chief justice already made her position, and we respect that, but we can’t avoid the questions on the JDF, especially that this is the budget season. When we go to congress to defend our proposed budget, we don’t only get asked on our budget, but also on issues dealt by the agency, especially if it concerns public funds,” Valte said in an interview on Radyo ng Bayan.

During the hearing on the proposed P20bn budget for the Judiciary, Villanueva did not disclose anything about the JDF or the Judiciary’s savings even when he was asked by the lawmakers.

Representative Rodolfo Farinas of Ilocos Norte, said he was not convinced of the merits of the proposed budget for the Judiciary without details on the JDF, savings and the funding for the Special Allowance for Judges.

“Well, if you include that [JDF], it [Judiciary’s budget] could reach P28bn already. They should show us how much really is the budget of the supreme court,” he said.

“This JDF is not good. The guidelines are vague because it says that not less than 80% shall go to allowances and not more than 20% shall go to office equipment and supplies. What if the chief justice decides to spend 99.99% for allowances because the JDF law says it should not be less than 80%? Can you do anything about it?” the lawmaker added.

“She is given much leeway. If she is hot-headed for a certain day and she decides she don’t want to spend the JDF, what can you do about it? Is that fiscal autonomy.”