‘Mary Grace Piattos’ does not exist, PSA confirms

SOUNDS ODD, YET FAMILIAR The curious name and signature when first presented at the House quad committee hearing on Nov. 6. Also at left in this screengrab are Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop and Gloria Camora, head of the team in the Commission on Audit that examined the use of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President. —House of Representatives photo

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) has confirmed that “Mary Grace Piattos,” one of the supposed recipients of confidential funds under the Office of the Vice President’s (OVP) aid program, does not exist, raising concerns among lawmakers in the House of Representatives that the OVP had crafted a scheme using fictitious names to justify its spending.

In a Nov. 25 certification submitted to Manila Rep. Joel Chua, chair of the House committee on good government and public accountability, PSA Undersecretary Claire Dennis Mapa said the agency was not able to find a birth, marriage, or death certificate under the name “Mary Grace Piattos.”

READ: Reward offered, but no leads in search for ‘Mary Grace Piattos’ after 11 days

Mapa said the agency might be able to search further if the committee could provide “additional information such as the name of parents of the subject, date, and place of the vital event.”

READ: The P1 million question: Where is ‘Mary Grace Piattos’?

Obvious from the start

But for House leaders, the certification merely confirmed what they have known all along that Piattos was a fictitious person, and the OVP under Vice President Sara Duterte had fabricated documents for ghost recipients.

The name has captured national attention after Commission on Audit (COA) documents revealed that one “Mary Grace Piattos”—whose name seems to be an amalgam of a popular cafe and a brand of chips—was a signatory to an acknowledgment receipt for P70,000 worth of “medicines” dated Dec. 30, 2022.

This means Piattos received part of the P125-million confidential funds that the OVP spent in just 11 days, which are now being scrutinized by the House panel.

‘Fraudulent, false’

In a press conference on Tuesday, Deputy Majority Leader and Tingog Rep. Jude Acidre and Bataan Rep. Geraldine Roman said the PSA revelation had “serious implications” of fraud and put into question the other acknowledgment receipts submitted by the OVP to the COA to justify how it spent its confidential funds.

“Logic will tell you now that if there is no Mary Grace Piattos, all the documents signed by her are fraudulent and false, and in the bigger scheme of things, if there is such an irregularity, then we would have to scrutinize other documents submitted by the OVP?” Roman said.

“How creative. But this is no laughing matter. It was the most imprudent decision. Maybe they thought that ‘Okay, just sign there,’ but [it’s] wrong. The truth will eventually come out,” she said.

“It seems ‘Mary Grace Piattos’ is a fictitious scheme to steal from the Filipino people,” Acidre added. “If there is a mistake in one document, then we have reason to believe the others are also spurious. And if the falsehood is large-scale, then this might be tantamount to technical malversation.”

VP appearance

In a separate statement, ACT Teachers Rep. France Castro said the revelation only bolstered the argument for Duterte to appear before the good government panel and explain herself. The Vice President snubbed earlier hearings conducted by the panel, even as her staff in the OVP and the Department of Education, which she used to head, honored the invitation by the House to face lawmakers as resource persons.

“This is no longer just about questionable disbursements. We are now looking at potentially fabricated documents and ghost recipients. Who really signed these [acknowledgement receipts], and why the need to use fake names?” Castro said.

Most of the acknowledgment receipts submitted by the OVP were signed using only initials or did not have signatures at all, the hearings revealed.

Acidre also dismissed any attempt to present “Mary Grace Piattos” as a code name for an informant.

“It would be so convenient to say this is a code name when, in fact, the OVP has stood by [the existence of Piattos] because they had a notarized certification,” he said. “Confidentiality is not absolute… the reports are confidential, but it doesn’t allow you to fabricate acknowledgment receipts.”

Just Piatos, not ‘Piattos’

The OVP’s special disbursing officer, Gina Acosta, earlier told lawmakers that she did not know Piattos but said there was such a surname in Davao City, her hometown, where the Vice President once served as mayor.

A recent search by Inquirer Mindanao failed to find “Mary Grace Piattos” or her supposed relatives in Davao City. The Inquirer, however, was able to confirm that people with the surname “Piatos” are residents of Davao.

In a press conference last month, Chua was asked to confirm the existence of other supposed OVP beneficiaries whose names were also based on snack brands but the lawmaker said only “Mary Grace Piattos” had been mentioned in the hearings.

Impact on impeach rap

Lawyer Neri Colmenares, a former Bayan Muna representative, said it was “not legal to sign a fake name in an administrative document.”

“It’s not confidential and is a weak defense. If it’s allowed as a defense, then billions of [pesos in] confidential funds could very well be stolen and the identity of the perpetrators unknown,” he told the Inquirer.

As to whether the revelation has merit on the impeachment complaint filed by civil society groups against Duterte on Monday, Acidre and Roman said they would have to “wait and see.”

“When we studied the grounds for impeachment, there is [a] betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption, misuse of public funds… possibly this can be used as evidence, but of course, we will have to review that,” Roman said.

“The most concrete basis of public trust is how we use public funds,” Acidre said. “If there are fabricated [acknowledgment receipts], there is proof of wasteful spending. I think this is in plain sight, a clear betrayal of public trust.” —with a report from Inquirer Research