C. Atoc’s complaint

Ben Contreras

 THIS column got hold of the Aug. 5, 2016 plunder complaint, among others, filed by a certain Clemente Atoc with the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao against respondents Oscar S. Moreno, Glenn C. Bañez and Percy Salazar. The complainant didn’t give his proper address and instead, had everything cared of to his lawyer. It must be for security reasons.

The charges:

Plunder – one of the qualifying aspects of a plunder case is “that the aggregate amount or total value of ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00”

I have always questioned this for reason that anything less than this can’t qualify for plunder. Plunder, by simple definition, is “dishonest acquisition.” Dishonest acquisition by itself is already taboo in government. Why the benchmark? Is it to protect dishonest government officials? Would P49,999,999 be an amount not qualified for plunder? Hah, how our lawmakers make loopholes for their own safety!

Four checks in four consecutive days amounting to P49 million, all issued with the mayor as payee allegedly without “supporting documents” submitted. You think this is regular? If so, no wonder a senator in 2001 dared claimed in his article that out of the so much budget for fiscal year 2000-2001, 30 percent to 40 percent will go to the pockets of the politicians. Is this how easy to rob our government?

If I could only name somebody without putting her name and person in jeopardy, I would have filed a case myself.

Technical malversation – “Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public fund or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public fund or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such fund and property.”

If the P79 million cannot be explained and supported properly with documents, it’s going to be Moreno and Co.’s greatest nightmare.

Violation of the provisions of RA 3019 – There are a lot of them but this one caught my attention. Section 3(a): “… persuading, inducing or influencing another public office to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulation…”

It is common knowledge that Bañez and Salazar are both under the mayor. Were they persuaded, induced or influenced to act as they were allegedly accused of?

Violation of the provisions of RA 7160 and 6713, Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority and Manifest Partiality – Wow, these will keep Atty. Mordeno’s hands full–defending the seemingly indefensible.

Are there more TROs waiting for Moreno? This should be an interesting matter to look forward to amid growing skepticisms about how our justice system really works and for whom.

In the end, either justice will be served or denied.