'Give Ongpin a chance to answer'

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Francis Escudero recommended yesterday to the Senate Blue Ribbon and the committee on banks and financial institutions to give businessman Roberto Ongpin a chance to explain the P660-million loan he got from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) that was used to buy shares of Philex Mining Corp. in 2009.

Escudero disputed reports that Ongpin may have practiced “insider trading” in the purchase of Philex shares noting Sen. Sergio Osmeña’s statements last Friday that, “the entire world knew (businessman Manuel) Pangilinan was buying Philex shares.”

“Those were the individual opinion of the senators (insider trading). For me the behest (loans) we saw during the time of former President (Ferdinand) Marcos that loans were not serviced, not paid, and the bank was only used. Here the loan was serviced, the loan was paid and the bank earned,” Escudero said.

He said that the issue on insider trading is not clear with Senator Osmeña saying that the whole world knew that Pangilinan was buying shares while Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile claimed that only Ongpin knew about it (Pangilinan’s plan to buy shares).

“If the whole world knew that, then that is not insider trading,” Escudero added.

Enrile had raised suspicion that Ongpin might have inside knowledge when he decided to acquire Philex shares from DBP, through a loan he also obtained from the same state-owned bank.

Escudero said the government did not lose P400 million due to the deal between DBP and Ongpin since it was not realized. 

He said nobody could predict the prices of Philex shares soaring to P21 per share at the time when DBP sold its 50 million shares to Ongpin for P12.75 per share.

Escudero said the DBP even earned much since it bought the stocks at P5 per share, and later sold it at P12 per share to Ongpin through a loan granted to the businessman’s company Delta Ventures Resources Inc (DVRI). The shares were however registered under Golden Media. 

Former DBP president Reynaldo David said during last Friday’s hearing that Ongpin is the beneficial owner of the two companies.

Escudero also asked during the last hearing why DBP officials seem to be selective in looking into deals that happened under the past board headed by David.

Escudero said there was another deal where the DBP did not gain anything and yet they are looking into this deal, which earned the bank some P1 billion.

He added that a loan could be considered behest when it was not a serviced loan, unpaid, and the bank did not earn from such loan, which is contrary to the P110 million and P550 million or a total of P660 million loans granted to Ongpin’s firms.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago finds as “valid” the concern raised by Ongpin that he may have been “prejudged” by senators who were conducting hearings on the alleged behest loan.

Santiago noted that while the Senate could conduct investigations “in aid of legislation” some of her colleagues have been issuing statements that tend to cast judgment on the guilt of some of the resource persons.

“That is a valid concern because the first and primary work of Congress is to craft laws. That is why they are called legislative. The power to investigate is simply in aid of legislation,” Santiago said.

She was reacting to Ongpin’s statement that the Senate had prejudged him already when they accused him of getting behest loans, and then using inside information prior to his move to acquire Philex shares from DBP.

Santiago said the problem arises when lawmakers seem to enjoy and take advantage of the power of the media, particularly television. 

“Ang problema sa Kongreso, just because there is a constitutional provision regarding in aid of legislation, hindi sila trained sa batas. Kung abogado man, hindi nag practice. Salita na sila ng salita, ng hindi pa tapos ang imbestigasyon,” she added. (The problem with Congress is that many are not that well versed in the law and tend to speak before the investigation is finished).

Santiago said the Senate should stop its investigation on the issue, and let the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) handle any truth to allegations that key players in the Philex deal were involved in insider trading.

She said the dilemma of a politician is that he could issue statements through the media unlike in the case of prosecutors or judges, who are barred under the law to make comments in the middle of trials or hearings.

“I have two objections. The first objection is this: there is no rule of silence with respect to Senate investigations unlike the rule of silence with respect to a judge or a prosecutor in the regular court. Number two, all the findings of the Senate are mere recommendatory, and the preliminary investigation will be repeated anyway,” Santiago added.

Santiago cautioned her colleagues against casting judgment in an ongoing probe such as the alleged behest loans granted to Ongpin.

She also reiterated that it is not fitting for the Senate when its committee reports are merely recommendatory to the Office of the Ombudsman.