2 claim being wrongly accused in Philcomsat case
MANILA, Philippines – Saying they were wrongly indicted for acts committed as private individual, two former officials of sequestered corporations have asked the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division to dismiss the graft case against them that stemmed from their alleged collection of exorbitant salaries and benefits.
In a motion, Enrique Locsin and Manuel Andal asked the anti-graft court to defer the issuance of a warrant for their arrest, conduct a judicial determination of probable cause and, if it finds none, to throw out the charges against them.
Locsin and Andal were government nominees to the Philippine Communication Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) and Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corp. (POTC), which had been sequestered by the Philippine Commission on Good Government.
They were charged with receiving “grossly exorbitant salaries” in violation of the ceiling on the annual salary of board members of sequestered corporations as imposed by Memorandum Circular No. 40. They were also found to have “unexplained reimbursements” for representation and transportation expenses, consultancy fees and various cash advances from the Philcomsat Holding Corp. (PHC), whose mother company is Philcomsat.
But in their motion, they said they were being charged for their actions as officials PHC, which is a private corporation. Thus, its transactions involved private funds.
According to them, they were not government nominees to the PHC board and neither were they appointed by the President or the PCGG. They said they held positions in PHC in their personal capacities as legitimate stockholders of the corporation. They purchased their PHC shares with their own personal funds, they added.
“The transactions subject of the instant case refer to PHC, not Philcomsat, herein accused are not government nominees to PHC and PHC is not a sequestered corporation, and has a separate and distinct judicial personality from Philcomsat and POTC,” they said.
They added that there was no evidence to show that they were appointed as government nominees to the PHC board.
Locsin and Andal also said there was no evidence presented that would show that they had committed any offense.
They said they could not have violated Memorandum Circular 40 since this was only applicable to board members of sequestered corporations.
Since PHC is a private corporation, any allowance or compensation that they received from it as directors or officers was not covered by the memorandum, they added. They also noted that MC 40 had been superseded by a more recent memorandum, MC 175, which removes the limitations on allowances that may be given to government nominees on the boards of sequestered corporations occupying executive positions.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the PHC transactions were covered by MC 40, Locsin and Andal said, the more recent memorandum, MC 175, should apply to them.
They also said the expenses they incurred were in accord with company policies. The expenses were not for their own personal benefit, but for the benefit of PHC, they added.
