A FEW weeks ago, the state-owned Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC) filed criminal complaints before the Department of Justice against several directors, officers and consultants of the shuttered Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank.
The nature of the complaint? Syndicated estafa resulting in P669 million in losses for the bank (which eventually contributed to its demise in 2011).
At the top of the PDIC’s charge sheet were the bank’s former vice chair Albert Aguirre, former chair and president Teodoro Arcenas and 31 other former officers, employees and consultants of the bank.
In its complaint, PDIC alleged that the respondents, acting “with abuse of confidence” as bank directors or officers, “conspired and misappropriated” Banco Filipino funds solicited from the depositing public to pay for their travels abroad from January 2000 to July 2003.
Biz Buzz can imagine that one high-profile personality involved in the Banco Filipino fiasco a few years ago heaved a sigh of relief when he saw that the list of respondents to the PDIC complaint did not include his name. This high profile personality is, after all, now a ranking government official with weighty responsibilities that transcend the country’s borders.
But here’s the thing: Biz Buzz learned that the deposit insurer— as part of its role as the liquidator of Banco Filipino’s assets (to pay off its long suffering depositors)—is preparing a second set of complaints to be filed at the DOJ.
This second batch, we’re told, will include in the charge sheet the name of that high-profile government official who once did work for the troubled bank (and allegedly made millions in the process).
Assuming that the PDIC doesn’t succumb to high-pressure lobbying from high ranking officials, the inclusion of this high profile government personality would be very embarrassing, indeed—an embarrassment even in the country’s foreign affairs. Daxim L. Lucas
Firing back
FORMER TRADE Undersecretary Victorio Mario Dimagiba is firing back against his alleged detractors and is turning the tables on the consumer advocates who earlier scored his alleged “gross incompetence” and inaction against unadulterated cement.
In a letter sent to these advocates, Dimagiba accused Ernesto M. Ordoñez, president of the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (Cemap); Jose Pepito, chair of the National Consumer Affairs Council, and Juanito Galvez, chair of the Filipino Consumer Federation, of “media bullying” while allegedly hiding their “irresponsible, premeditated, malicious, criminal and repressive motives and agenda.”
Dimagiba claimed in his letter that Ordoñez, as Cemap president, allegedly committed several acts that were punishable and in violation of Section 15 (Abuse of Dominant Position) in relation to Section 48 of Republic Act No. 10667 or the Philippine Competition Act.
He claimed that Ordoñez has allegedly “repeatedly committed anticompetitive acts that prevent competitors from growing within the market.” Dimagiba further alleged that Ordoñez and the others started their tirade against him when he asked Cemap to “explain why prices of cement remained high such that cement traders consider Cemap as a cartel.”
Dimagiba, meanwhile, claimed that Pepito, in allowing himself to be “publicly identified as NCAC chair, committed usurpation of authority … despite the opinion of the Legal Services of the Department of Trade and Industry dated July 4, 2016, that [his] term expired on June 30, 2016.”
He likewise claimed that the existence of Galvez was reportedly suspicious as he nor his group did not appear in the DTI list of consumer organizations.
“Due to the seriousness of this complaint, and the wide publicity that Ordoñez and company committed in the recent weeks, if I do not receive any response within five calendar days, I will understand such to be an admission of all the above accusations and I will execute the relevant complaint affidavit for the filing of appropriate civil, administrative and criminal cases against all concerned parties and with prayer for the imposition of administrative fines, imprisonment and other relief as allowed by law,” Dimagiba warned.
It seems that the former trade official, who was originally shortlisted to be retained at the DTI, won’t take this issue sitting down. He seems to be showing the same fervor in his fight against consumer abuses as his fight against his detractors. Amy R. Remo
Challening start for PCC
ISSUES surrounding the PLDT and Globe Telecom takeover of San Miguel Corp.’s telco assets have quieted down a bit—as things usually do when lawsuits start to fly. But some observers overseas did have an unusual take on the issue.
Making the rounds now was an intelligence report issued by London-based PaRR, which mainly deals with competition issues. And while it took a relatively pro-telco stand on the issue, there were some interesting insights on their view on the conduct of the Philippine Competition Commission.
Just a quick refresher, but the issue centered around whether the P70-billion acquisition required the approval of the PCC. Since the deal was launched just before the PCC’s implementing rules came out, the telco duopoly said it was covered by transitory rules, which only required a truthful notice to be filed, which PLDT and Globe claimed they did. It’s a technicality but the telcos said they complied with it to the letter.
PCC, on the other hand, said it was not an ordinary transaction, it was their mandate to implemented the Philippine Competition Act, and a deal of this nature at least required some sort of review given its long-term repercussions. They tried to do just that, and lawyers of PLDT and Globe entered the scene.
An unnamed antitrust lawyer based in Singapore told PaRR the PCC was now taking a big risk in pursuing an “awkward case as its first one.”
The suggestion was that it should be more like Singapore’s antitrust body, which built up its reputation tackling and winning smaller, “clear-cut” cases versus a counterpart in Malaysia, whose reputation was “harmed” after losing a case when it went after AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines.
“As the regulator tried to exert power and jurisdiction over the deal, it now finds itself mired in litigation, which does not really set a helpful tone moving forward,” PaRR cited a second antirust lawyer in Hong Kong.
By now, it should be apparent the PCC did not care about any of that. In fact, its stand was best summed up in a single paragraph of that 127-page comment filed by the Solicitor General last week on its behalf.
“Though relatively young, however, the respondent cannot and will not simply surrender its fort lest it throws into the bin the two decades worth of legislative toil just to enact the PCA,” the Solicitor General wrote to the Court of Appeals.
There, enough said. Miguel R. Camus
Changing the Constitution
CHARTER change advocates all agree that the 20-year-old law of the land needs to be more responsive to the changing times. But there’s an ongoing debate whether the 1987 “Cory” Constitution would be changed via constitutional convention (Con-con) or constituent assembly (Con-ass).
Businessman-turned-lawmaker Alfredo “Albee” Benitez thinks it should be the latter.
Long before Con-Ass became fashionable, the Negros Occidental congressman filed House Resolution No. 2, proposing that Congress convene itself into a constituent assembly to introduce changes to the country’s basic law.
A BS Mathematics degree holder from St. Mary’s College in Virginia, USA, Benitez believes that Con-ass is the more prudent and most economical way to introduce charter amendments, particularly the shift to a federal form of government.
By doing away with the time consuming process and costly election of constitutional convention delegates, the congressman thinks Con-ass is the way to go.
With a businessman and second-richest legislator leading the pack of charter change advocates, Filipinos can look forward to livelier and more intelligent debates on proposed changes to the Constitution, especially its economic provisions.
This early, Benitez has proposed the naming of a so-called Council of Elders composed of legal luminaries, religious groups, environment advocates and other sectors to make initial studies on charter amendments before submitting it for consideration by the constituent assembly.
While this may be one of the more practical suggestions on changing the constitution, expect this to be the subject of spirited debates in the coming weeks. Daxim L. Lucas
E-mail us at bizbuzz@inquirer.com.ph. Get business alerts and a preview of Biz Buzz the evening before it comes out. Text ON INQ BUSINESS to 4467 (P2.50/alert).