Ombudsman Aniano Desierto said graft probers indicated that Alvarez’s consultant Malou Nuñez may have committed "improprieties" in the scandal although they may be administrative in nature.
The scandal stemmed from allegations that two telecom firms — Philippine Communications Clearinghouse Inc. (PCCI) and APC Wireless Interfacing Network (WIN) — gave a P50-million bribe to Arroyo so he would work for the rescinding of the presidential veto of the firms’ congressional franchise.
"There is a testimony that (Nuñez) had been following up the franchises in Malacañang when she had no business doing so. It’s improper for a public official to do that," Desierto said.
However, the Ombudsman clarified that graft probers are still determining whether Nuñez and several others could be held criminally liable for violating Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
"We will go deeper and determine if indeed there was an attempt to persuade or induce anyone to commit an offense or to commit a violation of the anti-graft law," he said.
Parrying questions on Nuñez’s possible administrative liability, Desierto pointed out that "administrative offenses can graduate into a criminal offense depending upon the evidence that may be adduced."
The Ombudsman, however, refused to comment on whether Alvarez and Presidential Legislative Liaison Office head, Secretary Gabriel Claudio and two other Palace employees are suspected of involvement in the scandal.
"We will talk about it later. We are still going through it. Initially, that (Nuñez’s possible liability) is what I heard. There are still no reports on the others," he said.
Desierto said that while he does not expect the initial report until next week, graft probers are already certain that irregularities were committed, improprieties at the very least.
The Ombudsman’s probe was initiated at the instance of President Arroyo, whose former correspondence secretary Veronica Rodrigo accused the First Gentleman of receiving the bribe.
Rodrigo, however, later recanted her accusation and said she had no personal knowledge of the alleged bribery and relied only on what Nuñez told her.
Nuñez, Rodrigo’s friend, allegedly actively lobbied for the rescinding of the veto on the franchises of PCCI and APC.
Rodrigo admitted she arranged for Nuñez a meeting with Claudio on June 1 at the latter’s PLLO office at the instance of a mutual friend, a certain Marge Evangelista.