MANILA, Philippines—No less than Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez thinks the Ombudsman would be hard put to pursue a graft case against former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez since the original complainant, Mark “MJ” Jimenez, has withdrawn the charges, even as ousted President Joseph Estrada wants the book thrown at Perez for plunder.

Perez, one of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s close political allies, is now a private citizen and is currently a member of the Philippine Orchid Society’s board of directors.

On Wednesday, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez denied Perez’s motions seeking to dismiss the complaint filed by Jimenez and reverse an earlier resolution ordering Perez’s prosecution.

Gutierrez’s move paves the way for the trial on graft charges in the Sandiganbayan of Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

Jimenez, a former Manila congressman, had claimed that in 2001, then Justice Secretary Perez tried to extort $2 million from him in exchange for not being compelled to submit damaging affidavits against Estrada, whom Jimenez had served as a financial adviser.

According to Jimenez, Perez threatened to clap him and his family behind bars if he did not comply.

A check with the Sandiganbayan records division early Thursday afternoon showed the information against Perez had yet to be filed with the anti-graft court.

Perez continued to be unavailable for interviews with the media.

Desistance

Gonzalez, however, reminded reporters that in October 2007, Jimenez filed an affidavit of desistance withdrawing his extortion complaint against Perez.

“It certainly will have an effect. It will certainly weaken the prosecution’s case if the main complainant will now refuse to testify,” Gonzalez said.

(At the time, Jimenez said he was withdrawing his complaint in the spirit of forgiveness and because he wanted to focus on his “Hulog ng Langit” foundation, which he put up ostensibly to give aid to and sponsor religious activities for the poor.)

Gonzalez told reporters that without the main complainant, the prosecution might not be able to use documents that could prove the case because these would not have been identified by Jimenez.

“They will be relying on certain documents that can be considered hearsay,” he said.

On the other hand, Gonzalez said, the judge who would hear the case could “force” Jimenez to testify or at least explain to the court his refusal to pursue his complaint.

Gonzalez said he did not know what Jimenez’s affidavit of desistance contained, but if it was made only in the spirit of reconciliation, it would not affect a finding of probable cause to file the case in court.

“You do not forgive when the crime has been committed, unless it’s a personal offense,” he said.

Gonzalez said it would be a different matter if the complainant stated that the contents of his complaint were untrue.

In that case, the complainant may be charged with perjury, he said.

Bad karma

“He (Perez) should face plunder charges instead of graft because of the amount of money involved,” Estrada told reporters Thursday at Club Filipino in Greenhills, San Juan City, where an advance celebration of his 71st birthday was hosted by his political party, Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino.

Estrada—himself convicted of plunder by the Sandiganbayan in September 2007 but quickly pardoned by President Arroyo—pointed out that the amount involved in Perez’s case was $2 million. “That’s already plunder,” he said.

Estrada said the Ombudsman’s decision to elevate Perez’s case to the Sandiganbayan was long overdue, and grumbled about the latter’s being allowed to post bail.

He said this latest legal development was the result of bad karma for the former justice secretary, whom he had accused of trying to convince him to go into exile in exchange for the dropping of the plunder charge against him.

One of Estrada’s sons, San Juan Mayor Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito, said the affirmation of Perez’s indictment showed that the truth was finally coming out in his father’s favor.

“It only confirms the fact that there are many anomalies hounding the present administration,” Ejercito said.

As for Estrada’s proposal that Perez be charged with plunder, Assistant Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni said this could not be done because the case had arisen from only one transaction.

Anti-plunder law

Under the anti-plunder law, a public official shall be deemed guilty of the crime if he/she, in connivance with family members or business associates, accumulates ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of at least P50 million through a series or combination of criminal acts, Jalandoni pointed out on the phone.

Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, who led the panel that prosecuted Estrada for plunder, agreed with this view in a separate phone interview.

He said the alleged extortion as described by Jimenez was a “one-shot deal,” which was not contemplated under the anti-plunder law.

Villa-Ignacio also said his office would form a panel to handle Perez’s case once it is raffled off to a division in the Sandiganbayan.

Good move but...

Opposition senators were skeptical over the Ombudsman’s announcement that it was pursuing the graft case against Perez.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said it was “a good move that will help dispel the widespread impression that the Office of the Ombudsman is covering up the involvement of administration officials in corrupt deals.”

“This is good for the Ombudsman, bad for Nani,” he said. “But [it still has to be proven] whether this is real or not.”

Pimentel also said the Ombudsman’s decision to file charges in the Sandiganbayan came “quite late.” But he conceded that Gutierrez “should be credited” for going after her former boss at the Department of Justice.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the government had “just netted a big, albeit dried, fish” in Perez.

“There is, however, a need for the Ombudsman to quell the speculation that there is a double standard of justice in the Philippines—one for allies and cohorts of the administration, and another for political foes,” he said.

Lacson: Who got $14M?

Lacson challenged Perez to disclose what he knew of the alleged $14-million bribery in the approval of the 2001 power plant contract with Argentina’s Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima (IMPSA), which was purportedly brokered by Jimenez.

“Perez has one remaining opportunity to redeem himself,” Lacson said, adding:

“He must now tell the Filipino people who partook of $12 million in the $14-million bribe in the 2001 IMPSA deal.

“In case he has forgotten, he only has to remember where the $4 million, $1 million and $7 million went.”

Sen. Francis Escudero accused Gutierrez of applying a double standard of justice, saying that like Estrada, Perez should be charged with the nonbailable crime of plunder.

“I can’t understand why it took the Ombudsman so long, and why her decision is different from the previous decision of [former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo] on a similar case of bribery,” said Escudero.

“How come in the case of former President Estrada, the charge was plunder, yet in the case of a former ally of President Arroyo, the charge is only extortion and simple graft?” he said.

Pimentel likewise wondered why Perez and his co-accused were being charged only with graft, and not plunder.

Grand show

Reached for comment, Fr. Joe Dizon, coconvenor of the group PlunderWatch that had helped file the plunder case against Estrada, said he believed that nothing would result from the Ombudsman’s move.

“This is just a grand show. So don’t expect us to be jumping for joy that the government is finally doing something about corruption in this country,” the activist priest said on the phone.

Dizon pointed out that the complainant, Jimenez, had filed an affidavit of desistance and was now considered an ally of Ms Arroyo.

Still, he said, “technically, even if there’s an affidavit of desistance, the case should proceed against Mr. Perez because what he did is a crime against the people of the Philippines, and not just Mr. Jimenez.”

Too little, too late

Dizon said Gutierrez’s action was “too little, too late.” He said there was hope for firming up the case, despite the absence of Jimenez’s testimony, if government prosecutors could map out the “money trail.”

“This case is only being revived so that the government could finally bring it to a close, especially since the President will be out of power by 2010 and Mr. Perez may be eyeing a return to politics,” Dizon said. With a report from Jerome Aning