spot_img
28.1 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

2 ex-Enrile staff, 10 more dismissed

- Advertisement -

THE Office of the Ombudman ordered the dismissal from the service of two former staff of former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and 10 others in connection with their involvement in the pork barrel fund scam.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered the dismissal of Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, Enrile’s ex-chief of staff; Jose Antonio Evangelista II, Enrile’s ex-deputy chief of staff; ex-National Agribusiness Corp. paralegal Victor Roman Cacal; 

National Livelihood Development Corp.’s then president Gondelina Amata; ex-department manager III; ex-director IV Chita Jalandoni; ex-director IV Emmanuel Alexis Sevidal; ex-cashier Ofelia Ordoñez; ex-budget officer Filipina Rodriguez and project development assistant IV Sofia Cruz; 

Technology Resource Center’s ex-director general Dennis Cunanan; ex-budget officer Consuelo Lilian Espiritu and ex-chief accountant Marivic Jover—for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dishonesty.

Apart from their dismissal, the respondents have been perpetually disqualified from holding public office, and that their retirement benefits are forfeited.

- Advertisement -

“In the event of separation from the service, the penalty is convertible to a fine equivalent to respondent’s salary for one year.

Reyes and company are also being tried before the Sandiganbayan for their involvement in the anomalous utilization of Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund in 2007 to 2009.

Investigation showed that from 2004 to 2010, Enrile continuously endorsed the implementation of his PDAF-funded livelihood and agricultural production projects in different parts of the country to questionable non-government organizations linked to businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles.

From 2007 to 2009, the amount of P345,000,000 was released by the Department of Budget and Management as part of Enrile’s PDAF. 

After the fund release, Enrile identified the NabCor, NLDC and TRC as the implementing agencies.  

To facilitate the scam, Enrile through Reyes authorized Evangelista to act for him, deal with the parties involved in the process and sign documents necessary for the immediate and timely implementation of his PDAF-funded projects.

The former senator also endorsed the Agri and Economic Program for farmers Foundation Inc., Agricultura para sa Magbubukid Foundation Inc., Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc., Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, People’s Organization for Progress and Development Foundation Inc. and Social Development Program for Farmer’s Foundation Inc.

Actual field validation conducted by the Ombudsman revealed that no deliveries were made to the supposed beneficiaries, while mayors and municipal agriculturists denied receiving any agricultural items from Enrile, the implementing agencies or any of the NGOs.

The Commission on Audit observed that the NGOs that received the multimillion peso PDAF releases did not have the track record to implement the projects, the selection of the NGOs as well as the alleged procurement of goods for distribution of beneficiaries did not undergo public bidding, the suppliers denied having dealt with any of the NGOs and the reported beneficiaries were unknown or could not be located at their given addresses.

The Ombudsman also anchored its decsion on the records of whistleblower Benhur Luy that “Enrile received, through respondents Reyes and Ruby Tuason, total commissions, rebates or kickbacks amounting to at least P172,834,500.”

“Based on testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the widespread misuse of the PDAF allotted to a legislator was coursed through a complex scheme basically involving projects supposed to have been funded by said PDAF which turned out to be inexistent or ‘ghost projects,’” Morales’ resolution read.

“In most instances, the disbursement vouchers were accomplished, signed and approved on the same day. Certainly, the required careful examination of the transaction’s supporting documents could not have taken place if the DV was processed and approved in one day.” 

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles