BEFORE July ended, the Supreme Court came out with its decision declaring the articles of impeachment against Vice President Sara Duterte unconstitutional.
In early June, the House of Representatives’ Committee on good government and public accountability recommended the filing of criminal charges against Sara Duterte and other officials who were with her in the Department of Education when confidential funds were allegedly diverted illegally.
Recommended for filing are criminal charges for plunder, technical malversation, falsification and use of falsified documents, perjury, bribery and corruption.
***
The House committee hearings elicited an admission from DepEd officials like disbursement officer Gina Acosta that confidential funds were handed to the VP’s security officers upon Sara’s orders.
The sums were not paid directly to so-called informants. Acosta claimed she has no idea how the funds were used because transacting with informants and other recipients was delegated to security officers who travelled to different locations to distribute “rewards” and pay the rental expenses for “safe houses.”
Acosta said she gave 125 million pesos in full to Colonel Raymund Dante Lachica who is described as the head of the Vice Presidential Security Group.
***
Oddly enough, Duterte’s undersecretary for administration was not an educator but a retired army general.
Prior to his retirement, Nolasco Mempin was the commander of the Philippine Army’s 10th Infantry Division based in Davao. He was appointed commander of Task Force Davao when Sara Duerte was city mayor.
Another military man, retired Brig. Gen. Noel Baluyan, was taken in as Assistant Secretary.
This prompted the Alliance of Concerned Teachers to call out the “militarization” of the education sector, which must be a “safe space for our children to learn and grow.”
***
Was the military in DepEd to transform it into a garrison?
Turns out, there was a substantial stash in confidential funds, the spending of which that could only be made relevant to DepEd’s mandate via a truly stretchable imagination. That imagination helped in coming out with aliases like Mary Grace Piattos and others.
Now that the impeachment case against the VP is almost dead in the water, will the Ombudsman act on the House’s recommendation to proceed against her for violation of the anti-Plunder law, etc.?
***
Republic Act No. 7080 defines Plunder as a crime committed by a public officer who acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least 50 million pesos. It is a capital offense because the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
The Vice President enjoys a modicum of immunity because the Ombudsman can only investigate the alleged Plunder in contemplation of an impeachment complaint.
A criminal complaint may not be filed in the Sandiganbayan unless she is first removed from office, or until after she steps down as an impeachable officer in 2028 – assuming that she does not ascend to the presidency.
Even then, because the Ombudsman can investigate her nonetheless, will the VP’s bank accounts be vulnerable to inspection?/PN
