Analysis by Raïssa Robles
I am inviting everyone to closely look at the set of accusations that has given legs to the perception that Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad is corrupt; that he tutored Janet Lim Napoles in the pork barrel scam. And that he is the pork scam mastermind.
All of these grew out of one thing: A statement – in the shape of two affidavits – by accused scamster Janet Lim Napoles. It is this same statement that makes people believe that the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) – implemented by Abad – is also heavily tainted with corruption.
Nothing else pins Abad to the pork barrel mess except Janet Lim Napoles’ two affidavits. These are the same affidavits that she personally shared with the Catholic bishops who visited her and who later pronounced her “the victim”, not a principal suspect in the pork scam.
To this day, it is only Napoles who has implicated Abad in the pork scam. And so, it really boils down to Napoles’ word against Abad.
Abad has flatly denied meeting Napoles in Shangri-la hotel over a decade ago. A meeting that Napoles had narrated in her two affidavits, which made the public believe her statement that Abad is the pork mastermind.
So, let’s examine Napoles’ narrative about Abad.
One was given in her affidavit dated May 12, 2014 and written in English. The other is in her affidavit dated May 26, 2014 and written in Filipino. The narrative about Abad is the same in both affidavits.
I obtained both affidavits just like other reporters – from the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee which was given official copies by the Department of Justice.
After repeatedly examining both for over a month, I’ve come to the conclusion that Napoles’ story has pretty big holes. That she made it up so she can call one of President Benigno Aquino’s closest political associates the “teacher” and “mastermind” of the pork barrel scam.
Napoles’ charges against Abad were so shocking that we simply swallowed her story whole without closely examining if these were lies.
I must confess, I felt the same way, too. Until I did a line-by-line deconstruction.
If you look closely at the Abad story she had artfully woven, you would see it has pretty big holes.
Let’s examine the implications of framing Abad
Napoles’ story on Abad has taken a life of its own.
It has proven extremely useful to the senators accused of stealing pork funds. They have seized it as proof that President Benigno Aquino III is acting with vindictiveness. That he is only prosecuting his political enemies while protecting political allies like Abad. That he is the “pork barrel king”.
When Senator Bong Revilla surrendered to the court over the pork barrel scam, he said:
“What I’m looking for is Abad. Where’s Abad? How about Alcala?”
His co-accused Senator Jinggoy Estrada also demanded to know why Abad was not in the list of those to be prosecuted. Estrada said:
“Fairness dictates that they should also investigate those mentioned in the Napoles testimony, or the Napoles affidavit or in the Benhur files.
Bakit kami lang tatlo lagi?… At kung ipapakulong nila kami, dapat makulong din sila. Hindi iyong tatatlo lang kami lagi. [Why is it only the three of us being accused of the scam? And if they would have us jailed, they (including Abad) should be jailed, too. Not just the three of us.]”
Someone posted a meme on Facebook to express the same sentiment (see photo above).
Now let’s examine what Napoles said about Abad, which led me to conclude she was framing Abad.
She told the same story first in an affidavit in English dated May 12, 2014:
She repeated the same story in her affidavit written in Filipino dated May 26, 2014):
Let’s break down the elements of her story:
One – Napoles first met Congressman Abad in the year 2000 when she was introduced to him by a certain Manuel Jarmin in a Japanese restaurant in Edsa Shangri-la Hotel.
Two – In her May 26 affidavit in Filipino, Napoles said
“Kay dating Cong. Butch Abad ko nalaman na NGO o Cooperative ang kailangan upang makapagnegosyo sa mga ahensiya.” [It was from former Congressman Butch Abad that I learned at an NGO or Cooperative was needed in order to undertake transactions with government agencies.]
Three – From this we can reasonably concluded that during her first meeting with Abad, Napoles had no idea about using NGOs and cooperatives to transact with the government. She wrote in her affidavit that she only found this out from Abad for she said –
“In that meeting, he told me about a project worth 10 million pesos. He showed me the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) then explained to me what it was for. Before the meeting ended, I handed him Php 2 Million Pesos.”
Wait a minute. If that was her first meeting with Abad and she did not know beforehand what Abad was going to tell her, why did Napoles have P2 million in her handbag ready to hand over to Abad then and there? What was she intending to do with all that money in the first place? Does she walk around with P2M in her handbag?
Napoles did not explain that in her story on Abad.
Before we go on further, let’s first review how the pork barrel scam works. Napoles’ explanation in her affidavits shows that at the very least, a triangle of conspiracy has to exist among 1) a government agency 2)a lawmaker and 3) an NGO.
The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issues a SARO or Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) to the lawmaker to signal that his pork project has been cleared and funds are available. Then the DMB issues a Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) to the implementing government agency. The agency in turn releases the money in tranches to an NGO for implementation.
In Napoles’ pork barrel scam, her bogus NGOs laundered the money and kicked back a certain percentage of the project amount to the lawmaker. And this, she claimed, was all inspired by what Abad told her in their first meeting in the year 2000.
According to Napoles in her English affidavit:
“In that meeting, he (Abad) told me about a project worth 10 million pesos. He showed me the Special Allotment Release Order (SARO from DBM) then explained to me what it was for. When the Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) was released, I gave him another Php 2 Million Pesos. Afterward, when we talked about the implementation, he asked me if I had an NGO. When I told him I did not have an NGO, he told me he would take care of it. From what I recall, he used Batanes Electric Cooperative to implement the project. After some time, he returned the Php 4 Million pesos I gave him with an added Php 2 Million Pesos more. That is when I started to transact using the PDAF.”
At first glance, the transaction seems to be pretty straightforward. Napoles said she gave Abad P2M during the first meeting. Then she gave him another P2M when the Notice of Cash Allocation was released.
But at that time, Napoles did not have an NGO through which to launder the money for this particular transaction. So according to her, Abad volunteered to “take care of it.”
And then, Napoles narrated,
“After some time, he returned the Php 4 Million pesos I gave him with an added Php 2 Million Pesos more.”
In short, Napoles claimed that Abad gave her P6 million in all – of which P4 million came originally from Napoles plus P2 million from Abad.
The following five questions over this transaction has puzzled me no end:
ONE – Why did Napoles advance P4 million to Abad (in two installments) when she had no part at all in the transaction because she had no NGO to to do the money-laundering? What was Napoles’ role in the entire scheme here?
TWO – Why did Abad give Napoles P2 million at the very end when she did not render him any service at all? Meaning, the transaction did not pass through an NGO controlled by her? So she did not do the money-laundering.
THREE – Why would Abad accept P4 million from her and then return it to her at the end, with an additional P2 million tucked in? The entire project amount was worth P10 million. Therefore, Napoles was in effect claiming that Abad gave her 20% (or P2 million) of the entire project amount of P10 million.
FOUR – Why would Abad give her a 20% commission when she did not help out at all in getting his alleged kickback from the project since she had no NGO which he could use as a conduit?
FIVE – Why didn’t the highly profitable relationship between them continue while Abad was a congressman up to the year 2004, the Education Secretary up to 2005 and the budget secretary starting 2010? Is Janet Lim Napoles holding any proof that it did? And if the relationship didn’t, why didn’t it?
These are the elements in Janet Lim Napoles’ story which don’t make sense at all even from the point of view of a scammer.
Which is why the only reasonable conclusion to take is that Napoles is framing Abad on this 2000 incident.
Napoles’ witness has refused to speak
Napoles named a certain Manuel Jarmin as the lone witness to her meeting with Abad. For over a week last month, I repeatedly tried to talk to Jarmin in his office at the Department of Agriculture and his two mobile phones. He never answered my calls and he never phoned back despite my asking his secretary several times for a call-back. I told his secretary it was about the pork barrel scam.
Last week, whistle blower Benhur Luy testified in court that Jarmin had helped Janet Lim Napoles form bogus NGOs.
How Napoles’ story on Abad makes sense
Napoles’ story on Abad makes sense from another, sinister angle. that angle is: who benefits from having the public think of Abad as the pork mastermind and what effect this would have on the political situation.
Abad is not among the congressmen listed in whistle-blower Benhur Luy’s files as having coursed pork through a Napoles NGO. One deleted file, however, contained a draft of a letter allegedly from Senator Vicente Sotto to Budget Secretary Abad about pork. This was unsigned. But Benhur Luy’s voluminous ledger did not show Abad receiving any money from any pork transaction. Although they were both involved in a plot to scam the country, Luy has proved a more reliable source of information than Napoles, who has lied from the start.
Neither did the Commission on Audit pork barrel report show Abad as part of any pork transaction.
A report from radio station DZRH claimed that another whistle-blower named Merlina Suñas had stated in her affidavit that Abad transacted with Napoles between 1997 to 1999. I have not seen that alleged affidavit.
I only have Suñas first affidavit that narrated Benhur Luy’s kidnapping. You can view it here.
But if Merlina Suñas’ second alleged affidavit does exist, this actually contradicts Napoles’ two sworn affidavits because Napoles said she first transacted with Abad in the year 2000.
However, if the Ombudsman were to take in Napoles as a state witness, that would mean chucking out Merlina Suñas from the witness protection program and indicting Abad as a principal suspect.
Abad has been one of my news sources for many many years but never a friend. When he became budget secretary, I asked him during a briefing with foreign correspondents at FOCAP how he kept himself from being tempted to steal the people’s money. He replied that one way was by instituting systems that restricted the temptation to steal.
In contrast, there exists a paper trail against the three senators who have been arraigned in court. But there is no such thing in the case of Abad.
However, there are still questions Abad must answer.
First, how was Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos – who is now facing graft charges in connection with the Napoles scam – able to operate under Abad’s watch for so long? Abad told a FOCAP press briefing that he had streamlined the budget execution process early on to reduce temptation and corruption. What was not streamlined in the process that allowed the pork barrel scams to continue?
Second, when was the first time that Abad personally found out that the Napoles scam was going on, with the connivance of some people inside DBM? Please pinpoint at least the month and the year.
Third, how did Abad get to know Manuel Jarmin? How were Abad’s relations with Jarmin? Did Abad have any transactions with him while he was a congressman or education secretary or budget secretary? ?
Fourth, Abad has denied that the 2000 meeting between him and Napoles – witnessed by Jarmin and narrated by Janet Lim Napoles in her affidavit – ever took place. But did Abad ever meet Napoles in his life? Did Napoles ever contact Abad in his mobile phone? If she did, what was their conversation?
If Napoles was trying to frame Abad, it is perhaps the reason why she also wanted to testify at the Senate. Any testimony there against Abad cannot be taken against her later on before a court of law since she is clothed with immunity from suit.
The two signed and sworn affidavits of Janet Lim Napoles
Napoles’ accusation against Abad follows that Latin saying, falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus – or “false in one thing, false in everything”.
Kalahari says
Abad was a 3-termer as congressman of Batanes that ended in 2004 and had presumably dealt his annual P70M PDAF to traders or the like in astute manner, he being a lawyer from Ateneo and finished his studies with masters in public administration at Harvard.
Napoles finished only the secondary education at a Claretian School in Maluso, Basilan in the early ’80s.
It is hard to believe that napoles is capable of framing the learned and widely experienced abad in 2000 when she started to concentrate on the PDAF business after a successful venture with the AFP.
Victin Luz says
TRUE: with ABAD blessing’s and directly consented to the ANOMALOUS TRANSACTION …
baycas says
http://www.gov.ph/2014/05/28/for-the-record-dzmm-interview-with-secretary-florencio-b-abad-on-the-napoles-affidavits/
Balikbayan says
@ baycas, thank you. Very good responses by Mr. Abad.
Butch, in the end of the interview, you said “Lalong-lalo na ‘yung ating gobyerno na ang ninanais naman talaga ay lalong mapalawak at mapalalim ‘yung kanyang pagnanasa na may transparency, may accountability sa ating gobyerno.”
Butch, we, your friends, supporters and batchmates, want to be behind you. The public will eagerly embrace closure of these alleged relationships with Napoles in 2000.
Right now, we can examine the PDAF of any legislator for the years 2009-2013. For example, your wife’s detailed PDAF can be examined in:
http://pdaf.dbm.gov.ph/index.php?r=Site/District_breakdown_rel/legislatorId/296/districtID/156/fy/2013.
Why not do the same for your 2000 DBM records? (This would be in keeping with your belief in transparency and accountability.) Why not allow public release of the DBM’s records regarding your 2000 PDAF, in particular, your SARO and NCA for 2000? Close this issue with Napoles in 2000 once and for all.
drill down says
not a good sign for an administration that claims transparency and “good faith” especially when there is a full blast propaganda going on right now to convince the people that dap is good without revealing a complete picture.
if there is 100+ billion pesos to throw around there better be something good gotten out of it. this is to be expected, it is not an unusual nor outstanding achievement. what is important is the total picture. any waste, illegal spending, crime, etc.in it?
baycas says
http://www.gov.ph/about/gov/exec/office-of-the-president/philippine-transparency-seal/
How about an Opacity Seal?
duquemarino says
Napoles started her scamming in 1998 with the P3.8 million purchase of 500 kevlar helmets. She got the money ang got away with it. She may even have scamming operations before 1998.
I surmise that from then on she had a series of scamming operations and amassed a lot of money, that’s why she can go around with millions in her bag, until she alledgedly met Abad in
duquemarino says
until she allegedly met Abad in 2000.*
Victin Luz says
Hole or no hole on Napoles affidavit,,,for us lowly Filipinos living on the rural areas cannot also believe that with the way the SYNDICATEs were doing with PDAF, SARO’s and later the PDAP , with the brightness/intellegence of ABAD ,it was impossible for HIM not to KNOW something about GHOST FUNDINGs of PDAF and SAROs….GUILTY iyang si ABAD…dapat IBITAY na sya…
Vhin AB says
Bitay agad? Di ba dapat kasuhan muna kagaya ni Enrile, Revilla at Estrada? Wala naman nagsasabing santo si Abad. Let’s look at the bigger picture. Mainam na maexpose lahat yan para panalo ang taumbayan at maiwasan na ang nakawan.
Balikbayan says
Raissa:
I agree that there are holes in Napoles’ affidavit. But, sorry, your conclusion that “the only reasonable conclusion to take is that Napoles is framing Abad on this 2000 incident” does not follow.
Rather, Napoles’ testimony must be vetted in court.
Let me paint an imaginary scenario of an investigation of a Mrs. N’s relationship with a fictitious Mr. A:
I (Investigator): Did you have an NGO prior to your meeting with Mr. A in 2000?
N (Mrs. N): No, Sir.
I: You had no NGO to do money-laundering prior to 2000?
N: No, Sir.
I: Then, why did you advance P4 million to Mr. A (in two installments) in the meeting, when you had no part at all in the transaction?
N: Before the meeting, Mr. A told me that we would need about P4 million in “capital” for his project worth P10 million pesos, and for that, the return on investment would be P2 million.
I: What was your role in the entire scheme here?
N: Ako po ang “kapitalista”, Sir.
I: Why did Mr. A give you P2 million at the very end when you did not render him any service at all?
N: My service is my capital, Sir, which allowed Mr. A to get control of his project.
I: But Mr. A already had control of his project, did he not?
N: That is correct, Sir. He can always direct his project to existing NGOs. But without capital, he would not be able to transfer the funds of his project to his NGO.
I: What was the capital for?
N: Ang kuro-kuro ko po ay mainly padulas for the government employees po.
I: But the transaction did not pass through an NGO controlled by you?
N: No, Sir.
I: So you did not do the money-laundering.
N: No, Sir. Rather, I only helped Mr. A get control of his P10 million project.
I: How much did Mr. A get from the P10 million?
N: I do not know, Sir.
I: Why would Mr. A accept P4 million from you and then return it to you at the end, with an additional P2 million tucked in?
N: Principal plus return on investment, Sir.
I: The entire project amount was worth P10 million. Therefore, you are in effect claiming that Mr. A gave you 20% (or P2 million) of the entire project amount of P10 million.
N: That is correct, Sir.
I: Why would Mr. A give you a 20% commission when you did not help out at all in getting his alleged kickback from the project since you had no NGO which he could use as a conduit?
N: That’s why I only got a 20% ROI, Sir. Later, when I had NGOs, I learned that I can net a much bigger percentage of a project.
D: Why didn’t the highly profitable relationship between the two of you continue while Mr. A was a congressman up to the year 2004, the Education Secretary up to 2005 and the budget secretary starting 2010?
N: I can only speculate, Sir.
D: Let me rephrase the question. Are you holding any proof that you had other relationships with Mr. A?
N: No, Sir.
D: If there were no other relationships, why not?
N: As I had stated in my affidavit, Sir, he had his own NGO. After our initial deal, he no longer wanted my capital. Besides, my deals required bigger commissions for me. And we were inundated with many “projects” after we set up our own NGOs. So, we did not really need each other, Sir.
Balikbayan says
One might object that P2 million on P4 million capital is a gigantic return.
But the risk in not getting the capital back is commensurate to the high return.
raissa says
your fictional narration has holes, starting with the sentence – before the meeting, mr A told me…
that would make the first sentence in this portion of the affidavit false.
also, such an impt detail shld have been disclosed in the affidavit. it was not. ergo, if this was true, this would be one of the “holes” i was talking abt
Balikbayan says
@Raissa & @Rene-Ipil:
Thank you for your comment.
In my imagined scenario, Mrs. N is a high school graduate who executed an incomplete testimony. The Q&A was not in a court of law, but was in the office of the Ombudsman (Mrs. M).
Mrs. N failed to include the new testimony earlier because she was not asked about the 3-minute phone call that led to the meeting, so this fact didn’t even pop up in her uncomplicated mind.
After Mrs. N’s response, Mrs. M at once realized that Mrs. N must amend her incomplete testimony (http://www.spearsimes.com/pdf/Evidentiary-Surprises-and-Ethical-Dilemmas-Spring08.pdf) for the trial – a weakness that Mr. A’s lawyers will run into the ground.
Maria Anda says
It is a wrong assumption that high school graduates cannot design schemes like PDAF. Actually, the scam is so simple that only those who have no business management and law experience will be as daring to pull a scam like that . It was a plain and simple cheating executed by ordinary greedy crooks.
Now, it is your turn to explain that the Napoles scam is complicated.
Balikbayan says
@maria, I didn’t say the Napoles’ scam is complicated. I said: “Mrs. N’s mind is uncomplicated; i.e, she is “simple minded” – she was not astute enough to see that a prior phone conversation with Mr. A was important testimony. (“N, I have a P10 million project. But, I need P2 million capital right away. Let’s discuss at Shang.”)
Please note that I have the liberty to endow the personality of my fictional characters any way I please. :-)
raissa says
you can write fiction but not here.
Balikbayan says
Ok.
I was just illustrating to you that your conclusion that “the only reasonable conclusion to take is that Napoles is framing Abad on this 2000 incident” is an invalid conclusion.
Until Butch shows his 2000 SARO and NCA, I remain unconvinced.
raissa says
Im curious. why do you believe a self-confessed scammer?
Maria Anda says
Are your fictional character/s immune from criticism, too?
Rene-Ipil says
The scenario you painted would not hold in any court of law because you are stating facts not in evidence. For example, in the very first question you assumed that N and A had a previous meeting. What evidence, documentary or testimonial, points to that previous meeting?
Balikbayan says
@Raissa & @Rene-Ipil:
Thank you for your comment.
In my imagined scenario, Mrs. N is a high school graduate who executed an incomplete testimony. The Q&A was not in a court of law, but was in the office of the Ombudsman (Mrs. M).
Mrs. N failed to include the new testimony earlier because she was not asked about the 3-minute phone call that led to the meeting, so this fact didn’t even pop up in her uncomplicated mind.
After Mrs. N’s response, Mrs. M at once realized that Mrs. N must amend her incomplete testimony (http://www.spearsimes.com/pdf/Evidentiary-Surprises-and-Ethical-Dilemmas-Spring08.pdf) for the trial – a weakness that Mr. A’s lawyers will run into the ground.
Balikbayan says
@Raissa:
I don’t necessarily believe Napoles. In fact, I want to believe Butch (He was a gracious host in his abode in Batanes), and I want him in the Ateneo Hall of Fame, not the Ateneo Hall of Shame.
Napoles’ testimony is a serious one, but easily refuted by his 2000 records. If he wants privacy, he could easily set it up so that the records be inspected (not copied) by a handful of reputable people in the DBM offices.