OSG urges Sandigan to junk Garcia plea deal

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained its position yesterday that the plea bargaining agreement entered into by prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman and former military comptroller Carlos Garcia is very disadvantageous to the government and should be junked by the Sandiganbayan.

In a 78-page consolidated reply to the comments and oppositions filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and the accused to a motion for intervention which ultimately seeks to nullify the deal, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz insisted on the illegality of the controversial agreement.

The OSG reiterated its position that the offended party in the Garcia plunder case is the Republic of the Philippines, whose consent “is absolutely necessary to the validity of the plea bargain agreement.”

Cadiz said the Sandiganbayan second division’s resolution dated May 4, 2010 virtually approving the PBA “suffers from incipient fatal infirmities; hence, it is null and void and all the actions undertaken by the OSP and accused Garcia pursuant thereto have likewise no legal effect.”

The OSG was referring to how the deal, despite the anti-graft court’s explanation that it has yet to approve the same, has already allowed the surrender of Garcia’s alleged ill-gotten assets worth around P135.4 million only and how the anti-graft court has allowed him to plead guilty to lesser offenses pursuant to the conditions set by the plea bargain.

The accused was originally charged with two separate cases of plunder for allegedly amassing some P303 million in wealth through kickbacks from military contractors and money laundering, but was allowed to plead guilty to direct bribery and facilitating money laundering on Dec. 16, 2010.

Cadiz said the plea bargaining agreement was entered into without the approval of the offended party and without the Sandiganbayan making an independent assessment of the evidence presented by the prosecution, which the OSP believes to be weak or insufficient to secure the conviction of accused.

Cadiz and other OSG lawyers said the Republic of the Philippines is not synonymous with the People of the Philippines and it is the OSG and not the OSP or the Ombudsman that represents the Republic of the Philippines.

The OSG said the plunder complaint filed against Garcia, his wife, and his children in 2005 alleged that the accused unjustly enriched himself “at the expense and to the damage of the Filipino People and the Republic of the Philippines.”

“The uniform claim of accused Garcia and the OSP that the Republic of the Philippines is synonymous with ‘People,’ who is already represented by the OSP, is devoid of merit,” Cadiz argued.

He said the Republic of the Philippines, as a separate offended party, may have its own reasons for not wanting to enter into a plea-bargain agreement, like its international and local commitment to fight corruption in government and recover illegally amassed wealth.

The OSG, in claiming its right to intervene in the case, said that it is not trying to deprive the Ombudsman and the OSP of their investigative and prosecutorial powers over cases filed before the Sandiganbayan.

The OSG’s motion for intervention is now considered as submitted for decision since all parties concerned have already been given their chance to comment or oppose each other’s arguments.