Ombudsman justifies junking of Esperat case vs Bolante

MANILA, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman yesterday cited lack of sufficient evidence as the reason for absolving former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante and 10 others of charges of misusing P432 million in fertilizer funds in 2003.

Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus Jr. said there was no whitewash in its preliminary investigation of the complaint filed by slain

journalist Marlene Esperat, who alleged overpricing, lack of public bidding, illegal use of public funds and payments of commissions from suppliers.

“All allegations were not substantiated. They remained as mere allegations,” he told reporters yesterday. “And in law, allegations without sufficient proof do not stand.”

De Jesus said there was no evidence of overpricing in the project as it was found during preliminary investigation that there was public bidding conducted by the Department of Agriculture through the National Food Authority.

“We based it on the merits of the case,” he said.

“There is no truth to allegations of whitewash. There was really lack of evidence to prove the charges.”

De Jesus said no evidence was presented during investigation to prove allegations of payments of commissions between officials and private suppliers.

The investigating panel also found that the memorandum of agreement signed by then Agriculture Secretary Luis Lorenzo Jr., former National Food Authority administrator (now Agriculture Secretary) Arthur Yap was valid and binding as affirmed by the Commission on Audit, he added.

However, De Jesus said the case against Bolante and other officials may be reopened should evidence be found to support the charges of journalist Marlene Esperat.

“There is no double jeopardy in preliminary investigation so it can be reopened if evidence is found,” he said.

In a resolution signed last September by Overall Deputy Ombudsman

Orlando Casimiro, the anti-graft agency dismissed the complaint against Bolante, Lorenzo, Yap and former agriculture officials Edmund Sana, Ibarra Poliquit, Belinda Gonzales, Eduardo Garcia and Ophelia Agawin.

The decision also cleared three businessmen facing the same charges: Jesus Varela, Benjamin Tabios and Pepito Alvarez.

Esperat, the former agriculture action officer of the resident Ombudsman, sued the 11 for allegedly misusing the P432-million agriculture fund to buy overpriced fertilizer in 2003.

She had alleged that P232 million of the fund for the project was

anomalously transferred from DA to NFA and only P90 million was actually spent.

However, Deputy Prosecutor Elvira Chua, who conducted the investigation on the graft case, said the complainants “failed to prove their allegations of overpricing,” which led to the dismissal of the complaint.

De Jesus said the graft case filed by Esperat is separate from the P728-million fertilizer fund scandal that also implicated Bolante.

“This (Esperat) case is completely different from the P728-million fertilizer fund case where Bolante is also named as among the respondents,” he said.

“So the dismissal of the first will not affect the ongoing investigation on the latter.”

De Jesus said the dismissal of Esperat’s complaint against Bolante and other officials was not done to condition the public’s mind that there was nothing anomalous in the fertilizer projects in 2004.

“I think it was just a coincidence that this decision came at this time when the other fertilizer case (referring to the P728-million fund controversy) is a very hot item,” he said.

“Our office always decides on the merits of the case.”