Maharlika Fund chief told to clarify lawsuit

Rafael Consing Jr.

MANILA, Philippines — Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez on Wednesday called on Maharlika Investment Corp. (MIC) president and CEO Rafael Consing Jr. to finally put to rest questions about a fraud or estafa case supposedly filed against him and his mother.

Rodriguez also suggested that the Supreme Court inform the public about the status of the case or complaint against Consing, citing a 2013 decision penned by then Chief Justice and now Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.

The lawmaker said that transparency on the matter would allay public concerns about Consing’s appointment as head of the MIC, the state-owned firm that would manage the country’s first-ever sovereign wealth fund.

Rodriguez said it was not enough for Consing to just say, as he did last week, that the case was dismissed because the details of the dismissal are material to the validity of Consing’s appointment.

“I am urging him to provide or disclose all of the details, and to show proof of dismissal so that all concerns about his qualification to head the government corporation that will manage tens of billions in assets of the Maharlika Investment Fund will be resolved,” he said.

Disqualifications

Rodriguez observed that concerns had been raised on social media by people who care about the integrity of the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) as well as the qualifications of those who will compose the MIC.

He said that the final implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 11954, or the MIF Act disqualified people from being appointed to the MIC board of directors if the following conditions were present five years before their appointment:

• if they were convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of more than six years
• if they were found administratively liable for any offense involving fraudulent acts
• if they were convicted by final judgment or found liable by a foreign court or equivalent foreign regulatory authority for acts, violations, or misconduct

They would also be disqualified if they have a pending administrative, civil, or criminal case relating to fraud, plunder, corrupt practices, money laundering, tax evasion, or any similar crimes involving misuse of funds in their possession or breach of trust.

Rodriguez pointed out that it was important for Consing to clarify when the fraud or estafa case and any related complaint were dismissed and to provide proof of its dismissal, saying, “If the complaint has been thrown out five years before his appointment, then he is qualified. If the case was resolved with finality within the five-year period or if it is still pending, then he clearly is disqualified.”

‘Red flag’

“Maybe, the Supreme Court, through its spokesman, can tell the public when this particular case and related complaints against Mr. Consing were dismissed, and if there is still any pending,” he added.

Rodriguez cited the high tribunal’s decision G.R. 161075 dated July 15, 2013, which apparently pertained to the fraud complaint filed against Consing and his mother. It circulated on social media following the MIC president and CEO’s appointment.

Opposition lawmaker ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro earlier called Consing’s appointment a “red flag,” noting that the Maharlika law’s IRR was revised in his favor as it removed the requirement for the MIC president and CEO to have an advanced degree in finance and economics.