Probe sought on $600-million GSIS investment fund

MANILA, Philippines - Two Mindanao lawmakers urged the House of Representatives yesterday to look into the status of the $600 million that the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) invested abroad.

In Resolution 124, Rep. Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City and his brother Maximo, representative of the party-list group Abante Mindanao, said the GSIS set aside the huge amount in 2007 for investment abroad.

“For the initial fund of $600 million, the GSIS had obtained the services of fund managers ING Investment Management and Credit Agricole Asset Management (Singapore) Ltd. The two were to manage the funds at $300 million each,” they said.

They said the fund managers were given the flexibility to determine their investment strategy, both in asset allocation and instrument selection.

Since the huge amount was investment, the Rodriguez brothers said the GSIS management has not informed members about the status of the funds and whether they are earning or losing money.

In the meantime, they noted that thousands of government pensioners were asking for their pensions or complaining of delays in their payment.

“There is thus a need for the full disclosure of all relevant information regarding the global investment program to inform GSIS members, as well as the general public, of the status and location of the funds,” they said.

They proposed that the House committee on government enterprises look into the huge investment.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently affirmed the Court of Appeals decision declaring the preventive suspension of two GSIS lawyers null and void and awarding them their back salaries during the period of their unjustified suspension.

In a 15-page decision penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the Court found that respondents Maria Molina and Albert Velasco, both Attorney V of the GSIS, were denied due process when petitioner Winston Garcia, in his capacity then as GSIS president and general manager, without the requisite preliminary investigation, issued two separate memoranda charging the respondents with allegedly committing acts constituting grave misconduct and ordering their preventive suspension for 90 days without pay.

The Court held that although the Civil Service Rules do not specifically provide that a formal charge without the requisite preliminary investigation is null and void, it is, however, “mandatory for the disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or at least respondent should be given the opportunity to comment and explain his side.”