Roberto Ongpin seeks disbarment of DBP ‘spokesperson’

MANILA, Philippines—Businessman and former Trade minister Roberto V. Ongpin has decided to file a disbarment case against the private lawyer who claimed to speak on behalf of the Development Bank of the Philippines on an alleged behest loan granted to the businessman by the state-owned lender.

In a press statement on Monday, Ongpin announced he had made this decision to seek the disbarment of Zenaida Ongkiko-Acorda upon advice of his legal counsel.

“After a thorough study of the case, my lawyers advised me that we have an airtight, open and shut case against Atty. Ongkiko-Acorda,” Ongpin said.

Two principal grounds were cited for filing the disbarment case.

First, Ongpin said the lawyer who called herself the “DBP spokesperson” issued a statement on August 10 that was “replete with all kinds of malicious statements” regarding the DBP loan.

Contrary to her allegations, Ongpin said these loans were entirely aboveboard, totally secured and paid ahead of time.

“DBP made P1.3 billion in this transaction, probably one of the best transactions undertaken by DBP in its entire history,” Ongpin said.

Ongpin also cited a newspaper ad posted by senior officials of the DBP that pointed out that Ongkiko-Acorda was never retained by DBP as its counsel nor had ever been designated DBP spokesperson. The ad was backed by an affidavit from the following DBP officials: Edgardo Garcia (chief operating officer), Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Benilda A. Tejada and Jesus S. Guevara II.

Ongpin said that in Ongkiko-Acorda’s press conference on August 10, the lawyer also unequivocally stated that the DBP had been instructed by the Bangko Sentral ngPilipinas to investigate the Ongpin loans, “deliberately neglecting to disclose that DBP had made the request and that the BSP had only responded to DBP’s request.”

A few days later, Ongkiko-Acorda, in a paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, retracted her statement regarding the BSP’s role and said it was DBP that initiated the probe and only submitted its “findings” to the BSP.

Ongpin said she was obviously required by the BSP to retract it to set the record straight.

“It really is beyond me,” Ongpin said, “why the DBP chose this particular loan involving the Philex transaction where DBP made substantial amounts of profits to accuse me of all kinds of misdeeds. I have received advice from my lawyers and many others that under the Anti-Graft Law, there can be no case against anyone unless there is damage caused to the government. In this particular case, the exact opposite was true.”