SC to ombudsman: Reply to petition on ‘pork’ probe

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to answer a petition seeking more extensive investigation and prosecution of officials behind the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the misuse of the pork barrel or Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of lawmakers.

In session last Tuesday, the justices of the high court decided to require the anti-graft office to lodge its comment to the mandamus petition filed by a group led by presidential aunt Margarita Cojuangco.

The SC gave Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales 10 days from receipt of notice to comply with the order.

In their petition filed last Aug. 26, Cojuangco and former Manila councilor Greco Belgica asked the high court to issue a mandamus ordering the ombudsman to suspend DAP’s authors, proponents and implementors and pursue the investigation and prosecution of persons involved in the PDAF scam.

Petitioners also sought the filing of an impeachment complaint against President Aquino if necessary, after the ombudsman probe.

They stressed that erring public officials remain scot-free despite the rulings of the high court, which voided the PDAF and DAP and ordered prosecution of officials who misused PDAF. Belgica was the main petitioner in the PDAF case.

So far, only three senators – Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Jinggoy Estrada – have been charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan over the alleged multibillion-peso PDAF scam perpetrated by Janet Lim-Napoles. No official has been prosecuted so far in connection with the DAP.

Apart from the ombudsman’s slow investigation, petitioners also lamented that the Department of Justice’s action is “sub-par” due to “selective prosecution.”

The group also expressed fear that with the slow investigation, vital pieces of evidence could be destroyed.

Belgica and Cojuangco were joined by Bishop Reuben Abante, Quintin San Diego, Rev. Jose Gonzales and former Biliran Rep. Glenn Chong.

The high court in 2013 declared as unconstitutional the PDAF and all the laws that created it. The high court also prohibited the future creation of laws to revive the fund.

On the other hand, the high tribunal declared certain acts under the DAP unconstitutional in July last year.

In both rulings, the high court ordered an investigation and prosecution of erring officials on PDAF and also declared liable the proponents, authors and implementors of DAP.