Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Is Janet Lim Napoles framing Budget Secretary Butch Abad?

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

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.

Meme on Facebook created by PNoy critics

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”.

Comments

  1. As a citizen, putting aside either temporarily what I have given here or whatever, why is our country, politicians, leaders and the people enmeshed in difficulties on a thing such ‘pork funds’?

    Pork funds? History: The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending which is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

    ‘benefit x x x a politician’ . . . ‘in return for their political support’ . . . either in the form of campaign contributions or VOTES.’

    It’s a long history on this thing ‘pork funds. Popular in 1863. Edward Everett Hale used the term pork barrel.

    By the 1870s, references to “pork” were common in [ U.S. ] Congress.

    History of pork barrel in the Philippines – In the Philippines, the pork barrel system was first introduced in 1922 with the passing of the Public Works Act separately from the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

    Year 1922. So very long ago. Pork barrel is separate from the GAAs. Why is it passed separately? And not just be a part of the regular GAAs?

    Answers: 1. Benefit of politicians. 2. Politicians’ support. 3. Politicians’ campaigns support. 4. For votes.

    So, the Philippines copied the US style [ under American occupation rule] on pork barrel starting in 1922. From such copying, Filipino politicians learned more on it into heights of simple or complicated corruption.

    Can our country and Congress and Executive depts do away with pork barrels? Or better be just make it part of the yearly GAAs? Spending the gov’t funds ‘directly’ and not ‘indirectly’ by causing it to pass through lawmakers?

    Someone here mentioned ‘It’s horse-trading.’ Political horse-trading. It is political vote buying. The latter ends up to entrenching political dynasties. It’s a cycle. Continuing forever in politics. Tempts more into corruptions.

    We copied an evil thing. Uncontrollable at that. Everybody is into it. Every person, man, woman and child is evilly affected by it. Over all, the whole population suffers because of it. Yet, we, our leaders live on as if it is just part of real life.

    But it is not. It has to be done away with. Act Back before 1922. Doing away with this evil what follows next?

    What will be the consequence or consequences?

    The evil in pork barrel money and the corruption will be cut down. No more vote buying. No more horse trading. And political dynasties will dissipate. What I say here is only a dot of what the so many say about this.

    We voiced out before many times to do away to all porks barrel: PDAF, Malampaya Funds [if this is another pork barrel] and DAP. Leaders refused. PNoy at first refused. The SC ruled and will rule again on this evil thing.

    Let us think wisely on this. Voiced out wisely on this. The country and so many poor people will surely benefit without this evil thing. If DAP did help as said by the implementors, [we really do not know yet] doing away with this will be more realizable for more benefits and well-being of the people.

    Good politics and not bad politics will prevail in the land. Corruption will be greatly minimized. Gov’t funds will be delivered directly and immediately to whoever and whatever needs is demanded lessening the delays and disputes this evil thing is causing.

    Sen. Lacson said ‘ Under the present pork barrel system, x x x experience with “hard” projects,“ at least half goes to the lawmaker” as commission while “soft” projects are “the worst…. the commission (is) from here to eternity, without limits.” “Lacson estimates that only 50 percent of the legislators’ pork barrel is translated into projects, the good portion of the pork.” This could probably be the reason why people do not see where the money went as 50% of it is lost and we see only 50% as the result. The senator has a good point.

    History also said – ‘In 1925, Senate Minority Leader Juan Sumulong spoke before Congress citing the misuse of public funds in the form of pork barrel appropriations. In 1950 the pork barrel system was stopped, particularly the practice of releasing lump sums for which no projects were specified.

    For the first time, the discretion of choosing projects was transferred from the Secretary of Commerce to the legislators. [ Greed and evil started from hereon.]

    Subsequently, the law carried the identified projects of the members of Congress “being the representatives of the people, either on their own account or by consultation with local officials or civil leaders.”

    It continues . . . ” it could still be said that during this time the system was functional in terms of the check and balance mechanism between the legislative and the executive.” Why, is check and balance mechanism only about between the legislative and the executive on pork barrel? There are so many other issues on such mechanism to deal on.

    On to 1960s. “However, in the mid ‘60s there was a stalemate between the House and the Senate. No pork barrel funds were released. In 1982, during the Marcos reign, a new item was introduced in the annual General Appropriations Act by the Batasang Pambansa. It was called National Aid to Local Government Units (NALGUs).”

    Imagine a stalemate between the House and the Senate on pork barrel! Two Houses of Congress. The money must have been so tempting.

    And . . . “Under NALGUs there was the Support for Local Development Projects or SLDP. This was the closest to the pork barrel system according to journalist Belinda Olivarez Cunanan. Each assemblyman would get P500,000.00. ” Money now began to entice the lawmakers. – P500, 000.00 for each assemblyman!

    Now, how much is it since the recent bungle? Hundreds of millions to billions at that. Isn’t pork evil? Tell the world it is not!

    ““When former President Ferdinand Marcos governed through martial rule, the problem earned a new name—cronyism—and reached its height. The other difference is that at that time, the dispenser of pork was concentrated in one person—Marcos himself—with absolutely no check on any abuse committed. The national tragedy that followed was unprecedented in the country’s history.”

    The evil of pork barrel gave birth to another – cronyism. The sky was not even the limit of it. Difference only was only one person – Marcos with no check and balance mechanism. What followed after? National tragedy.

    Following administrations copies again. Cronyism gave birth to political dynastism. So, what’s next to this?

    “When Pres. Corazon Aquino rose to the presidency she restored the pork barrel system. In 1989, it started as a lump sum appropriation of P480 million and P240 million called the Mindanao Development Fund and the Visayas Development Fund, respectively. Representatives from these regions were authorized to identify development projects worth P10 million per district. Luzon representatives soon demanded their share. In 1990, the pork barrel assumed a new name: the Countrywide Development Fund, or CDF. Starting in 1992, each congressional district across the country was allocated P12.5 million and P18 million for each senator. Unlike in the past, there was no restriction on the kind of project the district representatives and senators may want to implement for their respective constituents.”

    Not anymore P500, 000.00 but went up to something of P10 million. Then P12.5 million. To P18 million.

    Pres. Ramos’ time . . . “In 1996, he restored the Public Works Fund, the School Building Fund, the Congressional Initiative Allocation or CIA, the El Nino Fund, and the Poverty Alleviation Fund.”

    “Only the officials of the departments of finance, budget, the implementing agency and the lawmakers themselves would know the status of the funds. At one time, CIA was reported to run up to P28 billions.”

    Pres. Estrada’s time . . . ” then Pres. Erap Estrada was quite emphatic on his stand on the pork barrel issue. In his inauguration speech (June 30, 1998) he said:

    “Government can provide basic services without the extra cost of pork barrel or kickback; roads for work; infrastructure for productivity; schools for skills; clinics for health; police for safety, and a lean and mean military machine for national defense.

    This I promise and I will deliver. … Government cannot afford to give all the youth the complete education promised by the Constitution, but it would be a crime if any money for education was misspent on inferior textbooks and substandard classrooms built by pork barrel. …

    I appeal to the coming Congress to search its conscience for a way to stand behind me, rather than against me, on the pork barrel issue and find a way to convert pork into tuition subsidies in the public and private schools.”

    ” Estrada did not entirely scrap the legislators’ discretionary funds. He retained the School Building Fund and still allowed the CIAs. But he also instituted his own version of the executive pork barrel fund called the Lingap para sa Mahirap.

    He introduced the Rural Development Infrastructure Fund (RUDIF), the same as the Public Works Fund, but with a P30M allocation for each congressman. However, the sole power to dispense “pork” to the legislators rested on the Executive.

    A legislator had to beg for a share of RUDIF—a case of executive supremacy over the legislative. In 1999, the congressmen lobbied for a share of the huge executive pork barrel, Lingap para sa Mahirap Program Fund.

    They were able to get a share equivalent to 2/3 of the Fund. Estrada reintroduced the CDF, but renamed it the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). Under PDAF, at least on paper, the congressmen would identify projects from a narrow set of project categories determined by the Executive.”

    Pres. Arroyo . . . “the PDAF was retained.” “During the Arroyo administration, there were several cases of corruption that had their roots in the misuse and abuse of the pork barrel fund especially to perpetuate herself in power which rocked her administration on several occasions. ”

    PDAF under PNoy Adm – “PNoy kept the PDAF legacy, and even nurtured it. Before Pres. Arroyo stepped down, the last PDAF allocated in 2010 was P10.86B. This figure was doubled (P24.62B) during the first budget allocation of the PNoy presidency in 2011. Despite the prominent emphasis on the theme of his electoral campaign—“Kung walang kurap, walang mahirap”

    Now, how much has it gone up? This is where we, the people are now . . . P10.86 billions!
    The evil of pork barrel money is still going up. The sky is not the limit.

    The next year budget is into trillions. P2.3 trillion? Are we getting somewhere? Yes, shooting beyond the blue skies!

    My corner in this world is small. Yet, I say scrap all pork barrels. All money rolled into pork barrels. The many poor people, their children, our children have their own small corner in this world. They say SCRAP ALL PORK BARRELS.

    No wonder, many of the people are working abroad to look for their own funds. It is not here they find it. It is out there, outside of this country! No work. No job. No money here for them. Where is the money then?

    Will Congress listen? Will the Executive listen? Will PNoy listen? Listen to what? No more pork barrels.

  2. @raissa,
    your analysis is very probable.
    sino naman ang nasasangkot sa mga scam na iyan na hindi ibubuhos ang galing at panlalansi para makaligtas sa parusa ng batas?
    i am not a blind follower. kung may mali rin ang ating mga pinuno, dapat ding managot.
    pero may panahon din yun.
    let them do their duties and responsibilities now.
    mahaba pa ang panahon ng papalit kay pnoy.
    ipagkakatiwala to sa papalit ang paglitis sa kung sinoman ang nalisya ngayon, kung mayroon nga.
    ang bintang ay bintang lang.
    let us stick muna to our priorities.
    i too, at times give some empathy to sickly, depressed or maligned person.
    we are all humans. and prone to committing errors and sins.
    but i am firm not to believe any promulgation from jenny jln.
    at the very least i can say hers are half-truths.
    thus her integrity has no place to stand under my reasoning.
    though she have all her rights to be properly tried in any court of our laws.

  3. How can it be that she had so much money at that time when she had not learned how to make money on pork yet. Hmmmm

  4. DID THE SUPREME COURT BOTH ACCEPT AND PERFORM CROSS-BORDER TRANSFER OF FUNDS?

    .

    I’m asking this question because two things caught my attention when I read the 145-page COA audit report on the Supreme Court for year ended 2010 during the term of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

    One is about the declaration in the report that the SC received a SARO for the amount of P748,402,000. There was no mention in the COA report what the SARO was all about and how it was spent, raising the possibility that it might refer to the catch-all “discretionary” or “intelligence” funds of the SC that are “off- limits” to COA audits.

    The COA audit report states:

    x x x x (quote) x x x x

    Allotments, Obligations and Balances (Net of TLRG)

    During the year, the agency had total appropriation of P12,694,722 broken down as follows:

    2010 General Appropriations Act./R.A. No 9498 P11,158,172,000
    Special Allotment Release Order(MPBF) P748,402,000
    Automatic Appropriations P696,274,000
    Continuing Appropriations (2009)-inclusive of projects P91,874,000
    Total Appropriations/Allotment P12,694,722,000

    x x x x (unquote) x x x x

    All the other Supreme Court allotments, obligations and balances are discussed in details in the COA report, except for the SARO. What gives? Apparently the funding covered by SARO was different from that covered by the GAA since those are two different line items.

    The other thing that caught my attention is this statement in the COA report:

    x x x x (quote) x x x x

    The balance of P102,318.00 refers to financial assistance to the DILG of P100,000.00 granted on May 18, 2005 for the national awardees of the 2004 Lupong Tagapamayapa Incentive Awards per Court En Banc
    Resolution dated February 8, 2005 while the amount of P2,318.00 was captioned as “Balance 2001 (various)”.

    x x x x (unquote) x x x x

    Isn’t this tantamount to a cross-border transfer of fund done by the Supreme Court – from the Judiciary (Supreme Court) to the Executive Branch (DILG) – the very same act that the Supreme Court now declares as unconstitutional?

    Or, am I simply misinterpreting the information contained in the COA audit report?

    Incidentally, in the opinion of the COA Auditor “the Auditor rendered an adverse opinion on the fairness of the presentation of the financial statements in view of the deficiencies which constituted 0.58 percent and 57.70 percent of the total assets, as shown in the Matrix on the Analysis of the Effects on the Misstatements on the Financial Statements marked as Annex B.1 and Annex B.2.

    And in its covering letter to the “Honorable Chief Justice”, the COA stated: There is reason to believe that the financial statements are not free of material misstatements due to the following deficiencies which contain the inclusion in the Cash-Collecting Officers of the unsubstantiated Lower Court (LC) balance of P706,567,502.38
    which cannot be classified to which regions it pertains to; inclusion in the Cash-LCCA account of other reconciling items totaling P141,472,491.35 which remained unadjusted; unreconciled difference of P5,133,270,942.61 of the Cash-LCSA account between the bank and book balances; unreconciled difference of P323,423,006.25 of the inventory accounts (Office Supplies, Accountable Forms and Other Supplies Inventory) between the accounting and the property records; and unreconciled difference of P740,997,042.34
    of the PPE accounts (excluding Land, Land Improvements, Office Buildings, Other Structures and Construction in Progress – Agency Assets) between the accounting and the property records constituting 57.70 percent of the total assets.

    • Correction in the above quote: “During the year, the agency had total appropriation of P12,694,722 broken down as follows”

      The amount of P12,694,722 should read as P12,694,722,000.

    • Cross border transfers is bad because violative of the constitution but does not indicate funds being lost.

      Unsubstantiated, unreconciled, misstated and unadjusted accounts are violative of administrative rules and indicate many things worse like inefficiency, loss of cash and other assets punishable under pertinent laws. I wonder what action was taken.

      • When the Executive is preparing the budget, it must inevitably perform cross-border transfers. That is, it will take money it may have initially earmarked for one branch/commission and transfer it to another in consideration of priorities. So, yes, it will juggle funds.

        Why do these cross-border transfers which are permissible and good during budget-preparation time suddenly become “bad” when they are done post-budget approval?

        • Oh, it is more than a philosophical exercise. Philosophical questions such as mine have real-world ramifications.

          To you, the answer to my question is obvious. To me, I am not ignorant of your answer, but I question its “obviousness”. To me, the answer is not obvious.

          Why so?

          Underlying your “obvious” answer is an assumption about the nature of man. It is that assumption that I question.

          And it is important to do so because how we see the world is how the world is created.

          So ask yourself:

          1. What is my answer?
          2. What is the underlying assumption for my answer?
          3. Is the assumption valid?
          3.1. What other assumption(s) are there?
          3.2. What happens if I change my assumption?
          3.3. Do I dare change my assumption?

  5. No comment yet. This post is just so that I can subscribe to email notifications whenever there is a new comment from readers.

  6. Pardon me, Raissa, but this particular article must have an explanatory note from you so as not to mislead the public into thinking that you are an apologist for Abad! I know that you are only driven to protect an innocent person from false accusations but it may project other motives for the non-believers! More power to you!

    • I decided to remove the explanatory paragraph.

      I want the reader to take it for what it is. To look at the evidence themselves.

      I am driven, not to protect Abad, but to see the truth for what it is – that we, the public, are being played by a veteran scammer.

      • Raissa,

        Please run a story or write article why Pnoy is so hesitant to certify the FOI Bill as urgent.

        • Maybe, just maybe, if the FOI is not a priority bill of PNoy, it is because he has at least started to say “I have a dream thought even a small dream at that. If FOI becomes a law, my small dream will be for naught.”

          Anyone wants to leave a legacy though how small or big it maybe. At least one.

        • Reasons: (1) the Aquino government is being more transparent than any prior administration, and information is being put on line as fast as practical, and (2) Mr. Aquino believes confidentiality is important in the conduct of a lot of business, for public awareness would make work difficult (ideas that are being brainstormed but are not final; national defense).

          My guesses.

      • Napoles might be a vetran scammer, but she had to deal with someone up there. And this could be ABAD. But she can only prove that in court with proof & testimonies.

  7. Question:

    Among the priority bills mentioned in 2013 SONA, how many were actually passed into law? How many reached the President’s office?

    Has Pnoy refused to sign any version of the FOI bill?

  8. You are right Raissa. Too many huge SINK HOLES in the Napoles’ 2 Afffidavits.

    1. Abad in ‘Yr 200’ a congressman. . . to ‘return money in ‘CASH’ to Napoles’ in the amount of P4M? Plus P2M? Was Abad carrying this money inside a DUFFEL BAG not a lady’s handbag? Why would a congressman be carrying so much money to return? 1st SINK HOLE.

    2. To say ‘Around 2000 I was introduced to Cong. x x x Abad x x x.’ Year 2000 has 12 months. She must remember what month at least. If she remembers ‘amounts of money’ and eager to MEET ABAD, the date is memorable as she remembers bring a lot of cash money. 2nd SINK HOLE.

    3. She says ‘ x x x That is when I started to transact using the PDAF.” The word “when” refers to ‘a RECALL’ of a time or date. Too vague. Year 2000 has 12 MONTHS time period. She must be able to give ‘a date.’ The meeting was so important for her that she ordinarily cannot forget it since she remembers some selected details but not all some important ones too. 3rd SINK HOLE.

    4. First meeting with Abad, why would the latter be BRINGING with him a FORM OF A SARO (Special Allotment for Release Order) during such an ordinary day meeting? Was Abad like MaCoy bringing with him all days ‘forms of Affidavits, Notarial Seal, Ribbon, Notarial Book, etc.? 4th SINK HOLE.

    . . . and just a 5th SINK HOLE:

    5. You are right. How could Napoles carry cash money ‘inside a HANDBAG?’ Let’s say 12 inches long and 5 inches depth. P2M cash money! That bag must also contain One LIP STICK, POWDER PUFF WITH MIRROR, 5 CELL PHONES, 2 NOTE BOOKS, 2 PENCILS, 3 BALL PENS, 10 CREDIT CARDS, BUNCH OF KEYS, I.D.s,
    TISSUES, HANDKIES, CRUCIFIX, ROSARY BEADS, PRAYER PAMPHLETS, PHOTO OF A SAINT, and of course the CASH MONEY OF P2 MILLION in P1,000.00 PESO BILLS. Can all these ITEMS BE PRESSED INTO a Gucci handbag?

    She must have a SAMSONITE 2 FEET X 1 1/2 FEET in size! 5th SINK HOLE.

    Janet Napoles’ story could be a golf-style stroke . . . A SINKY-HOLES-IN-ONE story to frame Sec. Abad.

  9. Hahay!!! Dear Pnoy i remember writing to you (dear mr president)…. Requesting for the FOI bill to pass… Wala talaga!! Saan na?? Saan na ang pinangako mo??? Hahayy!!!

    • when pnoy signed the pro-politician cyber-crime bill into law, that was also not a good sign for daang matuwid.

    • As I remember it right, PNoy said before his term ends in 2016 he’ll make sure FOI will pass. Sana maipasa na ng mas maaga but. I believe na mas malaki ang chance na maipasa sa panahon niya kaysa sa papalit na pangulo. Wait and see tayo.

  10. “Jenny was so insistent that I introduce her to Abad.” And Jenny went with her former associate to DBM to seek acquaintance with Abad.

    “Baligod and Napoles’ former associate whom Rappler was able to interview are skeptical about the list. In the first place, the inclusion of Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad in the published list raises a red flag, the former associate said.

    The former friend, who knew Abad, recalled that Napoles sought to be introduced to the budget chief about two or 3 years ago. “Jenny (Napoles’ nickname) was insistent that I introduce her to Abad. She went with me to the DBM [Department of Budget and Management] office. But the secretary did not meet us. He was busy,” the former Napoles friend said.”

    http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/58051-credible-janet-napoles

  12. The only way out for Napoles, the Three Stooges, and Gigi Reyes et al is through the election of Binay as our next president. Thus, these people will do everything in their power to assure Binays’ victory in 2016. A demolition job on PNoy and his administration is an obvious tactical maneuver available to this desperate but still powerful and influential group.

    parang patok na patok na si jojo. pero pwedeng mag backfire ang ganitong maniobra. Pag nagkataon, salikwat and aabutin galing sa pagsulpot ng di inaasahang dark horse.

  13. Another EXCELLENT article.
    A fair and balanced analysis.

    Napoles has been discredited .The Latin saying “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus – or “false in one thing, false in everything” is very apt.

    However , you raise a very important point – How can millions be stolen by Napoles when ultimately the buck stops at Abad’s desk? “>

    Finally a suggestion : Coming from Singapore and a firm believer in the good that new and emerging technologies can provide – Why cant the PH Govt set up a web based system to allow the public to track funds being used to help improve the provinces and barangays etc.

    Its easy to set up and one can easily view how much was allocated, when, what has been used, the proof ( photographs of the successful implementation of projects etc), copies of signed statements from those responsible for implementation etc .Then its easy for the ordinary citizens to be involved and raise issues when they believe fraud was involved and they can show proof of poor or non existent implementation.>

      • hi madame raissa,

        please also run an article about the many changes that DBM and other government financial offices are running and implementing. This is the reason why many scalawags hate Abad and Pnoy. I’ve heard that with this system there will be no more “lost vouchers”, no more letter of intents from bidders, DBM pursuing cashless transactions and so on and so forth. Media does not report on these changes and stories, sayang kasi major changes ito with regards to dealing with peoples money. With these changes, I am also hoping to see the government do away with the system they call “failure of bidding” because this is what crooks in government agencies are using to favor and manipulate bidding processes.

        keep up the good work madame raissa!

        mabuhay!

        • i think joe america pointed to an article on abad.

          for me, abad still has to answer the questions i posed at the end of this pc.but just the napoles affidavits arent enough to pin him.

    • Good idea that would be a great help to improve our country and stop all corruptions.

    • I believe that’s one of the innovations they are putting up in the DBM website….

      Perhaps, when all the brouhaha on the DAP is settled, they may have more time to work on this crowdsourcing of budget all the way down to the municipal level with a backtrack mechanism.

    • We don’t need a rocket scientist to do all these web based system if and when they have the intention to do a public service of transparency. Here comes again the empty word of GOOD FAITH VS BAD FAITH.

      If baycas has Mang Bernie, I have my BFF whose sayings I always consider to be true. She says to me in Tagalog, “Pag gusto -gawin (to do) may paraan, pag ayaw may dahilan (excuses). Anong say mo @baycas?

    • hello, how different would that be to the DBM’s PDAF website- when it was still constitutional, the DBM set-up the site where people can comment and submit photos- the DBM sent out lots press releases, but it never gained popular traction.

      http://pdaf.dbm.gov.ph/index.php

      and here, as an example: Speaker Belmonte’s Concreting and drainage improvement
      http://pdaf.dbm.gov.ph/index.php?r=Site/Project_breakdown2/legislatorId/310/districtID/040/projectId/254828/fy/2013

    • i believe that that project is ongoing that is why Abad explained that they weren’t able to immediately upload all docus pertaining to the DAP program because their system was being upgraded. i think when this upgrade is finished, Abad said that there will be realtime updates for fundings released for projects along with pertinent details. from what was envisioned, the moment the fund is released for any project, it will be shown on the DBM website. not sure though if this project will cover all agencies or the data will only be seen at the DBM site.

        • they would’ve posted it eatlier but the system, the server, probably couldn’t take in a massive amount of data while undergoing upgrade. kinks like this tend to happen when you’re updating your system. baka alien semaphore ang lumabas kung na-upload yun ü i’ve seen that happen in other sites :)

        • they would’ve posted it earlier but the system, the server, probably couldn’t take in a massive amount of data while undergoing upgrade or it simply bogged down. kinks like this tend to happen when you’re updating your system. baka alien semaphore ang lumabas kung na-upload yun ü i’ve seen that happen in other sites :)

    • Indeed, that web-based system should be set up in conjunction with the passage of an FOI Bill – but an FOI Bill what should never be the same as what is presently being pushed now. Maybe, the provisions of the FOI Bill must be discussed again in the light of the present PDAF/DAP circus.

  14. Mmmmm…. Pass the FOI BILL NOW! Para magka alamanan na ang lahat!!! Oo nga naman ms raissa… D naman cguro kasali yan sa Abad kay Napoles… Napagaral naman nya ang anak nya sa Europe…. Kaya nga wee need FOI now!!!

    • An I DONT THINK SO na magiging PRIORITY ni PNOY ang FOI dahil kapartido, kabarilan, kamaganak madadamay… i voted for him, and so happy during his first SONA stating That the FOI is his priority… Pang ilanG. SONA na wala pa rin cyang nagawa puro DADA…

      • i, too, am disappointed that the FOI Bill has yet to be passed. but i am a realist and pragmatic.

        malabo kang manalo if you try to pass more than one contentious bill at a time. lalo na ngayon wala nang pork barrel and the lower House is, by and large, allergic pa sa FOI.

        after RH Law, ang Bangsamoro Basic Law muna this year then FOI next year.

        sana :)

        mas madali kasi ipasa ang FOI sa Senate kasi madaling punteryahin ang hindi boboto para sa FOI.

        i think the Congressmen think there is “safety” or “anonymity” in numbers.

        look at the pork barrel scam. may mga congressmen na sangkot pero ang prominente lang sa mga balita ay ang mga senador. plus, they don’t have to face the wrath of the national electorate. if they have ironclad control of their province as most do, wala silang pakialam sa buong bansa unless their is a threat of being lynched once magpakita sila sa taong bayan.

        just my 2 cents :)

        • Sykes, at the least you are a realist and pragmatic. Not bad. Unlike others who shift from being a realist and pragmatic to being an idealist when it suits them. People change. That’s reality.

    • I don’t know if you just missed it, but earlier before the SONA, Speaker Belmonte already said that FOI bill is one of the priorities of this congress including the Bangsamoro bill, anti-dynasty bill, review of the EPIRA law, and review of the economic provisions of the Constitution. Maybe it was not mentioned before because it was already a priority in Congress?

      • If “priority” meant “to dilly-dally“, then we could understand.

        Eh, kaso HINDI…

        Time is running…FAST.

        They better hurry up.

  15. I am inclined that with their wealth and residual power, those caught in the PDAF scam will move heaven and earth as things get tighter for them. Moves like this spurious affidavit, which nobody seemed to give much credence except for a few silly bishops and perpetual critics, will become more common in the coming days.

    In my list of “principled DAP critics” which appeared in Joe America’s blog ( http://joeam.com/2014/07/17/waste-segregation-sorting-the-good-critics-from-the-bad/) I included Liling Briones and Ben Diokno amongst them, but I am more inclined to re-classify them to group 2, which include loyalists of previous corrupt regimes.

    I am of the view now that they are doing Erap’s bidding, since Jinggoy needs all the help he can get, including his father’s former Cabinet members. Both Briones and Diokno were proteges of Raul de Guzman of the old UP College of Public Administration. Raul de Guzman is Erap’s brother in law.

    • pls include Noli De Castro to that list who seems to enjoy the downfall of Pnoys admin… i hate watching tv patrol…

        • i wonder kung may ikapo din sa alegasyong 15 million na suhol dun sa NABCOR ba yun? ;)

      • baka may “scratch my back and i’ll scartch yours” deal sa isang opisyal tungkol sa isang malaking kaso sa housing scam. baka yung paninira kay Aquino ang kapalit para di sya masama sa kakasuhan. baka lang naman…;)