Ombudsman to go after late Ampatuan’s wealth | Inquirer News
UNEXPLAINED

Ombudsman to go after late Ampatuan’s wealth

/ 04:19 AM January 27, 2017

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales answers queries during the Meet Inquirer Multimedia forum held at the Inquirer office, Tuesday.INQUIRER PHOTO / JOAN BONDOC

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales INQUIRER PHOTO / JOAN BONDOC

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has ordered that proceedings be initiated to recover the allegedly unexplained P54-million wealth of the late Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr.

In a 27-page resolution, Morales ruled that the wealth accumulated by Ampatuan in the years 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 was disproportionate to his income for those years.

ADVERTISEMENT

The discrepancies between income and wealth are broken down as follows: P6.06 million for 2002; P2.16 million for 2003; P2.01 million for 2005; P612,829.22 for 2006, and P44.13 million for 2007.

FEATURED STORIES

“He and his family failed to lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income due to their extravagant and ostentatious display of wealth,” Morales said, after finding probable cause to push through with the possible forfeiture suit.

Morales’ finding of probable cause to initiate proceedings against the late Ampatuan and his widow Bai Laila Uy Ampatuan could still be appealed through a motion for reconsideration.

The 20-page resolution stated that under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379, assets found to be “manifestly out of proportion” to an incumbent public officer’s income would be “presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.”

The Ombudsman also cited the Ampatuan patriarch’s failure to declare 15 real estate properties in Cotabato City and Davao City, with a total value of P55.13 million.

Ampatuan also allegedly failed to declare 25 vehicles worth P27.57 million; 10 of them were even paid in cash. He was also found to have failed to declare the ownership of 23 firearms valued at P3.84 million.

The Ombudsman rejected the Ampatuans’ broad denial of ownership of the properties, some of which were registered in the name of another person.

ADVERTISEMENT

She did not give weight to the claim that Ampatuan inherited several properties from his deceased father who “was an affluent man,” because he had failed to present evidence and identify the inherited properties.

She also did not buy the claim that the cars were owned by relatives and friends who stop by for repairs at Ampatuan’s “small repair shop.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS:

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.