US again denies Bolante asylum; faces deportation
By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:37:00 06/05/2008
Filed Under: Agriculture, Graft & Corruption, Immigration, asylum
MANILA, Philippines—The controversial Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante is fighting deportation after US immigration authorities twice denied his petition for asylum in the United States, a Filipino lawyer said Wednesday.
Bolante, a former agriculture undersecretary, filed a petition for review with the US Federal Court of Appeals to overturn the June 2007 ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeal and the February 2007 decision of the immigration judge in Chicago denying his petition, according to University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque.
“He can be deported soon. It’s unlikely that they will reconsider [the rulings]. His petition was twice denied,” Roque said in a phone interview from the United States. “He’s looking at deportation.”
Bolante, who was said to have masterminded the diversion of a P728-million fertilizer fund for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s election campaign in 2004, fled Manila in 2006 to evade a Senate inquiry into the scam.
He was detained on arrival at the Los Angeles International Airport on July 7, 2006, on grounds of an invalid nonimmigrant visa. It later turned out that the US Embassy in Manila had cancelled his visa at the Senate’s request.
The Senate—which recommended Bolante’s prosecution to the Office of the Ombudsman after concluding its inquiry into the scam—had long wanted him to be deported to Manila so he could face charges of graft here.
Triumph for rule of law
Oral arguments on Bolante’s petition for review were heard in the Federal Court of Appeals on Feb. 11, according to Roque, who filed an amicus brief opposing his asylum petition together with other lawyers.
“A decision in the case is expected soon,” Roque said on the phone. “I’m getting rumors that the Court of Appeals has decided on it.”
Roque said he got a copy of the two rulings denying Bolante’s asylum petition while attending the Assembly of State Parties of the International Criminal Court at the United Nations in New York.
He hailed the decisions as “a triumph for the rule of law.”
“At least, Bolante failed in abusing the fundamental right of asylum which has literally meant the difference between life or death for many individuals who are in fact suffering from a genuine fear of political persecution,” Roque said in an e-mailed statement.
Burden of proof
In a June 25, 2007 ruling, the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) in Chicago, Illinois, threw out Bolante’s appeal of an earlier decision by the immigration judge denying his petition for asylum.
The BIA ruled that Bolante failed to prove that he could be persecuted if he returns to Manila.
“We agree with the immigration judge that the respondent failed to carry his burden of establishing he had suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” it said.
The immigration judge handed down its decision on Feb. 9, 2007, saying Bolante had failed to establish a “well-founded fear of persecution” on account of his membership in a particular social group.
Bolante had argued that he feared returning to the Philippines because there was a bounty on his head due to his failure to comply with the Senate’s summonses, and that some groups would seek his capture to collect the bounty.
But the US state department countered that it was not aware of any such bounty, the immigration judge said.
Supporting testimony
To back Bolante’s petition, his son Owen Bolante, Agriculture Assistant Secretary (ASec) Felix Montes, and retired Gen. Rodolfo Estrellada testified at the Immigration Court that there were threats to his life.
Montes testified that Bolante’s life was “in danger,” and that there were many people who “might want to use him to get at” Ms Arroyo, records showed.
The BIA mentioned Montes’ testimony in its ruling, but said: “Montes was likewise recommended for prosecution by the Senate committee [on agriculture] and yet he remains unharmed in the Philippines and similarly not charged.”
In his statement, Roque said Montes’ testimony was disturbing:
“First, it bothers me that no less than a [DA ASec] could lie brazenly about the Senate persecuting Bolante. As [ASec], he is subject to the qualified political agency doctrine which means that his pronouncements, were given in official court proceedings, are deemed as declarations of the President herself.
“How dare a sitting [ASec] lie in the courts of a foreign country! How could he ever appear before the Senate again for approval of the DA’s budget after he had accused the institution of abuse of power?”
In a text message, Leah Navarro of the Black & White Movement said: “The denial of Jocjoc’s appeal for asylum proves the US government was not duped despite testimony from a former DA ASec and a retired general … We continue to hope he returns soon to face justice.”
False testimony
Roque challenged the US authorities to file charges against Montes and Estrellado for false testimony.
“They should not be allowed to export their lying to the US. They should not be allowed to destroy US institutions in the manner that the Arroyo regime has already destroyed Philippine institutions,” he said.
According to Roque, Bolante had argued in his petition for review that the charges against him were designed to persecute him, and that the Office of the Ombudsman had not filed a case against him.
The Ombudsman’s failure to file charges against Bolante was equally disturbing, Roque said.
“The claim that the Senate is persecuting Bolante as allegedly evidenced by the fact that the Ombudsman has not filed any charges against him indicates clear collusion between [Ombudsman] Merceditas Gutierrez and Bolante,” Roque said.
“Apparently, her inaction is not only to prevent the filing of a criminal complaint that can be the basis for extraditing Bolante. It is also being used as proof of persecution in favor of Bolante. How dare this Ombudsman subvert the trust and duty reposed on her office by the Constitution?” he said.
‘Private matter’
Malacañang distanced itself from Bolante’s case, with Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita issuing the reminder that because he was no longer a government official, his legal woes were “a private matter.”
“We just have to wait for the development that will happen in the United States,” Ermita told reporters. “We will have to allow him to face [what he should face]. He should face it as a private sector, and the government will not, and should not, intervene [in his affairs] as a private [citizen].”
Speaking with reporters at the end of the Commission on Appointments’ hearing on his confirmation, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said there was no criminal case yet against Bolante that would warrant a request for his extradition.
“I don’t know what’s the recommendation of the Senate. Is it extradition? There’s no case yet actually, except the Senate report, but I should see that committee report,” Gonzalez said.
“It’s difficult to move on something which we are not conversant about. We might get ‘electrocuted,’ not by Meralco (Manila Electric Co.) but by [ourselves],” he said, adding that if Bolante’s asylum petition had indeed been rejected, the latter could still seek reconsideration.
Deportation
Earlier in the day, Sen. Panfilo Lacson called on the Department of Justice to initiate proceedings for Bolante’s deportation.
“Although cases have been filed before the Ombudsman, there is still no proper closure. This is corruption, and corruption is what is killing our country. We should not allow Bolante to get away with corruption,” Lacson said.
But he added: “I leave it to the decision of the collegial body. Once he’s back in the country, a resolution is in order.” With reports from Cynthia D. Balana and Christine O. Avendaño
|
