By Ed Velasco
The Daily Tribune
The Daily Tribune
Top economic officials, including Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Gov. Amando Tetangco Jr., Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, members of the Monetary Board Armando Suratos, Alfredo Antonio, Felipe Medalla, Ignacio Bunye, Peter Favila, Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. president Valentin Araneta and Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Teresita Herbosa have been charged with graft before the Ombuds-man over their approval of the merger between two major banks.
Several text inquiries were sent by the Tribune to Purisima asking for his comment on the criminal complaint against the officials but he failed to respond.
Purisima was a member of the infamous Hyatt 10 consisting of Cabinet and sub Cabinet level officials who were fired en masse in July 2005 by then President Gloria Arroyo.
Last Feb. 25, Assistant Ombudsman Marilou Ancheta-Mejica of the Preliminary Investigation Administration Adjudication and Monitoring Office II (PAMO II) ordered the top economic officials and several other respondents to submit their counter-affidavit and those of their witnesses.
Purisima is Finance secretary and concurrent MB member. The complaint against the officials stemmed from the complaint of Rosa Caram, one of the stakeholders of General Bank and Trust Company.
Mejica gave credence to the claim of Caram that allowing the Philippine National Bank and Allied Bank to merge constitutes a violation of section 3(e) and (j) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Punishment for the criminal offense is six-year imprisonment, perpetual violation from holding public office and garnishment of all properties obtained while in government service.
The complaint alleged that the banks should not merge because almost 80 percent of Allied Bank’s paid capital were still being disputed in court.
Despite the controversy, the BSP, MB and SEC gave the go-signal for the merger of the two banks last Feb. 9.
The complainants claimed that the BSP, the SEC, and the PDIC violated section 3 (e and j) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the, which refers to the following: Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
The complainants claimed that the BSP, the SEC, and the PDIC violated section 3 (e and j) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the, which refers to the following: Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
“This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions; and knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled,” according to the law.
The complaint also said the respondents violated Republic Act No. 6723, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, as well as Article XI, Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution, referring to public office as equivalent to public trust and Article 19 of the Civil Code, which states that “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
No comments:
Post a Comment