Ex-Cotabato Rep. Ipong asks Sandigan to junk ‘pork’ cases
Former Cotabato 2nd Dist. Rep. Gregorio Ipong has asked the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division to throw out his graft and malversation cases for the alleged misuse of P4.9 million in pork barrel funds in 2007.
In a 14-page motion to quash filed Thursday, Ipong said the Ombudsman violated his right to the speedy disposition of his case because the charges were only brought to the court this month, 10 years after the alleged offenses took place.
“Why it took the Office of the Ombudsman ten years to file the instant Information has not been rationally explained. There was inordinate, capricious, vexatious and oppressive delay in violation of the constitutional right of accused to speedy disposition of the case,” the motion read.
Insufficient allegations
Ipong also challenged the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the charge sheets, and claimed the Ombudsman violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations.
He said prosecutors failed to show how he could have acted with bad faith or gross negligence.
Ipong denied being responsible for the selection of Aaron Foundation Philippines, Inc., an allegedly unqualified non-government organization, as partner for his livelihood projects.
He said his March 28, 2007 endorsement of the said foundation was “only recommendatory,” and implementing agency Technology and Livelihood Resource Center was “clearly not duty-bound to accept” the selection.
As for the alleged lack of competitive bidding in the selection of AFPI, Ipong said he could not be held liable for violating rules that were not yet in effect at the time.
The bidding requirement was set by Government Procurement Policy Board Resolution No. 12-2007 and Commission on Audit Circular No. 2007-001, which only took effect on June 29, 2007 and Oct. 25, 2007, respectively.
He also argued the endorsement could not be considered “criminal inducement” for the misappropriation of his Priority Development Assistance Fund allocations.
“Accused Ipong merely sent out an official letter to TLRC which is not wrong per se,” the motion read.
Ipong said he could not be charged with malversation as well, claiming he did not have “custody and control” over his pork barrel funds.
He pointed out that the Department of Budget and Management directly released the funds to TLRC through the Bureau of Treasury.
Violation of due process
Ipong added the Ombudsman denied him due process because the agency acted as “investigator, complainant and judge being rolled into one.”
Under Ombudsman procedures, its Field Investigation Office can gather evidence and initiate a complaint for preliminary investigation by a special panel of investigators. At this stage, where the respondent is allowed to refute the allegations. Afterwards, the Ombudsman decides if there is probable cause to file appropriate charges for a court trial.
But, the former lawmaker questioned the system and said “partiality is evidently manifest.”
Besides this case filed Aug. 1, Ipong also faces separate graft and malversation charges at the Third Division over the misuse of P9.6 million for AFPI projects also in 2007. JE
