[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Ex-solon faces graft rap over P14-M ‘pork’’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY ADRIAN STEWART CO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
January 27, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANILA – For the alleged misuse of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) amounting to P14.7 million 10 years ago, former 5th District congressman Rolex Suplico faces a graft charge before the Sandiganbayan.
In a resolution approved on Jan. 8, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales found probable cause to charge Suplico with one count of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
On May 4, 2007 before the elections, Suplico received P14.7 million as part of his PDAF, according to the Ombudsman.
The funds, intended for livelihood and development projects in Suplico’s district, were transferred to the Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC) as implementing agency then released to AARON Foundation Philippines, Inc., the nongovernment organization (NGO) tapped as partner in project implementation.
According to the Special Audit Office of the Commission on Audit (COA), however, the PDAF remained unliquidated.
Suplico could not be reached for comment as of this writing.
Likewise charged were Antonio Ortiz, then director general of TLRC, and Alfredo Ronquillo, president of AARON.
COA also reported that the project implementation and the NGO selection process were not compliant with its and the Government Procurement Policy Board’s rules.
The Office of the Ombudsman, meanwhile, found that no business permit had been issued to AARON since 2004 and that its business address was at a vacant lot.
These cast doubt on its existence and legitimacy, according to the Ombudsman.
In its resolution, the Ombudsman stated: “There is no evidence showing that respondent Suplico exerted efforts to ensure that AARON liquidated the P14,700,000 which could only mean that he benefitted from the transaction or that he was grossly negligent.”
Because Suplico had “control and actual custody of the funds, as these funds cannot be released without his consent and directives” he thus must be held accountable, stressed the Ombudsman.
“Such failure/refusal to liquidate the P14,700,000 clearly casts doubt as to the validity, propriety and legality of the transaction between respondents, causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to AARON,” it added.
Ortiz and Ronquillo could not be reached for comment as of this writing./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
