Ombudsman blocks Devanadera’s bid to dismiss P6.1-B graft case

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman has maintained that there are sufficient grounds to try former solicitor-general Agnes Devanadera for graft over her supposed participation in the allegedly anomalous P6.1-billion settlement deal with a private firm in 2006.

In a 14-page opposition paper filed before the Sandiganbayan First Division on Dec. 15, state prosecutors from the ombudsman urged the court to deny “for utter lack of merit” Devanadera’s motion for judicial determination of probable cause with a prayer to dismiss the case.

Devanadera was a “knowing participant in the compromise agreement which the Supreme Court invalidated,” the ombudsman said.

Filed by the ombudsman on Nov. 25, the graft case against Devanadera and 18 other individuals stemmed from the compromise deal that the Philippine National Construction Corp. (PNCC), a government-owned and controlled corporation, entered into with Radstock Securities Ltd., successor-in-interest of Marubeni Corp.

Devanadera was at that time acting as the legal counsel of PNCC, as she was a public lawyer under the Office Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC).

The subject of the compromise agreement was a P13.15-billion collection suit filed by Radstock against PNCC, then pending before the Court of Appeals (CA).

In the compromise agreement signed on Aug. 17, 2006, the PNCC acknowledged that it has liability to Radstock amounting to P6.185 billion.

To pay for the purported liability the PNCC agreed to transfer to Radstock 19 real properties owned by the government. The PNCC also agreed to transfer to Radstock 20 percent of its common shares as well as to assign to the latter half of its six percent shares in the gross toll revenue of the Manila North Tollways Corp. for the next 27 years (2008 to 2035).

While the CA granted the joint motion for judgment based on the compromise agreement in 2007, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in 2009.

The ombudsman said the compromise agreement was unlawful as PNCC “had no power to compromise the settlement amount” and to assign toll revenue to private entities.

The ombudsman said the PNCC cannot just transfer government-owned real properties to Radstock in the absence of public bidding and without compliance with existing property transfer laws.

In her motion, Devanadera maintained that she had no participation in the negotiation for the compromise deal and aired her reservations about the agreement through several letters to the PNCC.

The ombudsman pointed out that her mere signature in the compromise agreement is already “clear proof” that she advised and assisted PNCC in the execution of the deal.

“If she had reservations in the validity of the provisions of the compromise, she should not have advised the PNCC to execute the same and she should not have signed the compromise agreement,” the prosecutors from the ombudsman said.