Yung ginawangv IRR na hindi isinama ang mga nakagawa ng heinous crime ay para sa

mga plunderers yun talaga ... alam kasi ng mga gumawa na kakailanganin nil;a yun ...
mabuti nalang ay dahil ka Sir Faeldon nakita ang pina ka iniingatingatan ng mga nasa
kulungan!!!

uso ngayon yan... plunderer nananalo sa eleksyon... yung iba pag namatay- nililibing pa sa
libingan ng mga bayani

Sometimes while contemplating on the rascality in congress and the loopholes being
exploited by the plunderers, one can't help taking a liking to the idea of sending the tanks to
level it to the ground.

n the deliberation regarding the restoration of the death penalty, some have suggested
including plunder among the crimes punishable in the extreme.

Those suggesting this might do better recasting the law governing the crime of
plunder. In recent cases, lawyers have identified a loophole in the law as it is framed
that could make it very difficult to convict anyone going forward.

Plunder is a crime specific to Philippine laws. What distinguishes this particular crime
is the specification of a threshold of P50 million of funds accumulated through an act
or a series of acts of self-enrichment. Only public officials found to have used their
office to accumulate ill-gotten wealth could be guilty of the crime.

Plunder is a serious offense. Anyone charged, with compelling evidence, of this

offense cannot post bail.

Being a newly conceived crime, the commission of plunder is still in the process of
definition through jurisprudence. Only a few cases have been filed so far to set clear
precedents.

In the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo vs. Sandiganbayan case, the Supreme Court en banc
ruled that the law required that a “main plunderer” to be specifically identified in the
information against the accused. The identification of the “main plunderer” is now an
essential element of the crime of plunder.

Like a hub that controls all the spokes of a wheel, the Court ruled that the “main
plunderer” controls all the actions that lead to the commission of plunder. As such, a
private person cannot be the “main plunderer.” By extending that logic, it will be a
stretch to argue a mere employee of a senior public official is the “main plunderer.”
In relation to the pork barrel scandal a few years ago, three sitting senators were
charged with plunder: Juan Ponce Enrile, Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada. They
were all detained for a significant period until the Supreme Court ruled (in Enrile’s
case) to grant bail and (in Revilla’s case) the Sandiganbayan voted to acquit.

The acquittal of Bong Revilla was controversial. While the Sandiganbayan

found insufficient basis to convict the (now reelected) senator, he was ordered
to reimburse government of the amount that was supposed to have been
plundered.

His chief of staff Richard Cambe was found guilty – and by the terms of the
law must be considered the “main plunderer.” The conviction is under appeal.

Jinggoy Estrada expects that the decision on the Revilla case will also benefit
him. In which case, his chief of staff Pauline Labayen will be left holding the
bag.

Enrile, who tried but failed to regain his seat in the Senate, is out on bail. His
chief of staff Gigi Reyes languishes in jail.

Napoles
The common co-accused of the three is Janet Lim Napoles. Her name has
become synonymous with the scandal, having run the outfit that “processed”
the pork barrel funds.

A few months ago, Estrada and Napoles filed a Demurrer to Evidence before
the Sandiganbayan. The motion basically asks the court to dismiss the case
because the evidence provided by the prosecution failed to prove guilt.

The Sandiganbayan rejected the motion. The new counsel for Napoles has
filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration on a novel premise.

This supplemental motion argues that the case filed against both Estrada and
Napoles failed to categorically name the “main plunderer”. Because of that,
the case is void from the start. No amount of additional evidence the
prosecution might submit will cure the deficiency.

The “main plunderer” could not be Napoles since she is a private citizen. But
the information filed did not specifically name Estrada as the “main plunderer.”
This supplemental motion draws heavily from the Supreme Court ruling in the
Arroyo vs. Sandiganbayan mentioned above. Arroyo won dismissal in this
case because, even as the information charges ten persons with plunder, no
“main plunderer” was named. As such the charges could not stand.

In the Supreme Court ruling, the “main plunderer” has to be a single

individual. He or she has to be named in the information filed. In a “wheel
conspiracy”, regardless of the number of persons named as co-conspirators,
that single individual must be established as the “hub” controlling the entire
commission of the crime.

Because plunder is a crime that only a public official can commit, the “main
plunderer” could not be Napoles. She may be charged as co-conspirator, but
without a “main plunderer” named, she is co-conspirator to no one. Ill-gotten
wealth of at least P50 million must accrue to someone. He must be so
positioned as to cause the accrual to himself.

All these might sound like legalistic hair-splitting. But the argument over
definitions is important. Some of the most earth-shaking court cases have
ended in a whimper, the charges dismissed on a minor technicality.

For this reason, there is a great burden on prosecutors to frame the case
precisely and to provide the evidence to support the charges. In the wake of
the SC ruling in the Arroyo case, it is now essential that the prosecution
identify the “main plunderer” among those charged for the crime.

In failing to identify a “main plunderer” in the cases where Napoles is co-

accused, there is a real possibility the charges will be dismissed. This is not
mere technicality. It is an indispensable ingredient given the precedence of
the SC ruling mentioned above.

We will see how the Sandiganbayan responds to this supplemental motion. It

opens a novel line of argument based in previous Supreme Court rulings. It
also exposes a flaw in the way the plunder law was framed.

Nobody really reads u anymore Alex ahahaha. I know that u know who the main plunderer
was, and she's friends with the current one sitting on the throne who became another main
plunderer himself ahahaha. Now, the minor plunderers might squeal so the current main
saw the necessity to set them all free along with the old main plunderer ahahaha.
The EsCi mumbo jumbo about the main and the minor plunderers only obfuscated the fact
that they are all plunderers and deserving harshest punishment, death penalty even. It only
proves that plunder money had seeped into the joydiziary too ahahaha.

Alex, come on let's talk about this, it's just the two of us here or did u get a cut too thanks to
your nonstop b**tlicking? ahahaha. Tell me with a straight face that u knew nothing
ahahaha

I remember Ange instead of spilling the beans in the interest of the taumbayan cowardly
chose suicide allowing his patrons and colleagues to get away with their corruption. He was
simply too ashamed to reveal that he was also part of it all! Such sheer disservice to our
bayan and taumbayan!!!

He knew that the taumbayan were maawain, so with his "sacrifice" and death there put a
stop to the corruption controversy that was then starting to blow to massive proportions.
Corruption which at the far end stood a tiny lady who had a penchant for saying I'm sorry
ahahaha.. no other than the old main plunderer I was pertaining to earlier ahahaha.

You are now old Alex, it's been a long time since your edsa days. I thought u were a
principled man but I guess I was wrong. The years made u grow numb? Now though it's
clear to me: Isa ka rin palang praktikal na tao na sarili muna ang iniisip bago ang bayan
ahahaha

The last of the triad of Senators accused of receiving hundreds of millions in

kickbacks from the pork barrel scam walked away a free man on Dec. 7.
Former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. was acquitted for plunder and was
released by the Sandiganbayan from Camp Crame.

Revilla’s acquittal follows the release of Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce
Enrile’s from police custody, both of whom were given back their freedoms
after posting bail for a crime that is supposedly non-bailable.

It will be recalled that back in July 2016, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was also
released from hospital arrest after being cleared of plunder by the Supreme
Court.
It is now a clean sweep! The four big fish that were tried and convicted for
graft and corruption are back walking among us. They are also back in the
political fray — GMA as Speaker of the House and the three stooges as
senatorial candidates.

Meanwhile, the woman who championed the drive to put these big fish behind
bars, former Justice Secretary and Senator Leila de Lima is herself
languishing in Camp Crame. The irony could not be more succinct.

REVILLA’S ACQUITTAL
At the heart of Revilla’s victory at the Sandiganbayan was former state
witness Marina Sula, who changed her story and became a friendly witness
for Revilla.

Sula testified that she did not personally see Revilla receiving money from
Janet Lim-Napoles. She further stated that it was Benhur Luy, the other
whistleblower and state witness, who supposedly forged the signature of
Revilla for the release of pork barrel funds to bogus NGOs. She also said that
it was former Prosecutor, Director Joefferson Toribio, who coached her on
what to say when she first testified against Revilla back in 2013.

Records showed that Revilla received the largest kickbacks from Napoles
amounting to P224.5 million, later recomputed down to P124.5 million.

Sula’s testimony is what convinced Justices Geraldine Econg, Edgardo

Caldona and Georgina Hidalgo to vote in favor of Revilla’s acquittal.
Respected ethics professor and the Sandiganbayan’s moral compass, Justice
Efren de la Cruz, dissented.
I am not a lawyer, so my opinions are merely based on practical sense. It
seems the three judges made a farce of the case and sold us out. These are
my thoughts:

Granted, Revilla is not the sharpest pencil in the box, I don’t think he is
imprudent enough to sign the endorsement letters himself, let alone collect
cold cash from Napoles. The fact that Sula never saw him in the act doesn’t
mean that he wasn’t aware of the scam and was not a party to it.

Also, why was Revilla’s right-hand man, Richard Cambe, found guilty while his
boss goes scot free for the same crime? Are we supposed to believe that
Cambe acted on his own accord without Revilla’s knowledge?

Further, according to a report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council submitted

to the Office of the Ombudsman, the bank deposits and investments made by
Revilla, his wife and their children amounted to P87,626,587.63 from April 6,
2006, to April 28, 2010. This was within the same period indicated on the
ledger of Benhur Luy that Revilla received his share of commissions and
rebates.

There are also glaring disparities on Revilla’s Statement of Assets and

Liabilities (SALN) during the heyday of the Priority Development Assistance
Fund (PDAF) scam.

For instance, in 2008 and 2009, Revilla declared a total of P6.4 million and
P6.5 million in cash and deposits, respectively, on his SALN. But the total
inflows to his accounts for those years amounted to P16.1 million and P24.1
million, respectively. Why the disparity? Where did the extra cash come from?

Making matters more dubious is that the realty firm controlled by Revilla’s
wife, Nature Concepts Development and Realty Corp., received P27.745
million in deposits during the period. The realty firm was not operating at this
time. Again, where did the money come from?
These questions seem to have been glossed over by the Sandiganbayan and
left unanswered. This is why I find the Sandiganbayan’s decision suspect. The
Sandiganbayan is taking the Filipino people for fools!

THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

The turn of events says a lot about the justice system.

First, it tells us that the Judiciary, including the Sandiganbayan and the
Supreme Court, is not truly an independent branch of government but one
swayed by the biases and influences of the Executive branch and even lower
ranking government officials. The courts decide according to the preference of
Malacañang, whether it be under a cape of yellow or red. We have seen it
happen before — judges bend the rules, make exceptions and interpret the
law in a manner that suits the agenda of the person they are trying to please.

A swayable (or negotiable) judiciary is a public threat. By being the obedient

attack or defense dog of certain powerful politicians, the judiciary, in effect,
ceases to be the mechanism for checks and balances against the executive
and legislative branches. It is no longer an equal branch of government but
one that is beneath and beholden to the two.

To Juan de la Cruz, it means that he cannot be absolutely certain of a fair trial

should his rights be violated by Malacañang or any member of the legislature.
The judiciary’s biased ways undermine the people’s rights to blind justice. It
ceases to be become the refuge of last resort of the people.

Secondly, it tells us that the justice system treats those who are aligned with
the administration with kid gloves while those in the opposition are made to
face the full wrath of the law. The law has become selective, depending on
one’s political persuasion.
It tells people currently holding government positions that they can escape the
consequences of graft so long as they are in the right political party and have
cushy relations with the people who matter.

By finding loopholes for convicted plunderers, the Sandiganbayan and the

Supreme Court have opened Pandora’s box. They have practically declared
an open-season for graft and corruption for those associated with this
administration. If the three senators can walk away as free men after being
convicted, why not other plunderers?

In one fell swoop, the judiciary negated the tenets of honest public
governance that the past administration worked so hard to instill among
government workers. It put us back to the dark age when corruption and
abuse in government was the rule, not the exception.

We don’t have to look far to see how abuse among government officials has
become the new normal. In our streets, government officials, down to some
bloody congressman’s aides, bamboozle regular citizens out of their way to
allow them unobstructed passage. They bully us with sirens and police patrol
escorts as if their journeys are more important than ours. Shame is gone and
entitlement is back in full bloom.

Third, it tells the rest of the world that we are losing our fight against
corruption and that our law enforcement institutions are the problem, not the
solution. Acquitting Arroyo and allowing Enrile to post bail was viewed as one
step forward and two steps back in our fight against corruption. This negative
perception is reflected in our global competitiveness rankings.

The World Economic Forum has ranked the Philippines a lowly 95th place (out
of 140 nations) in terms of corruption; 123rd in term of reliability of police and
law enforcement agencies; 105th in terms of the independence of the judiciary;
100th in terms of efficiency of our legal framework; and 121st in terms of conflict
of interest regulations. Transparency International’s Corruption Perception
Index placed the Philippines as the 111th most corrupt country in the world out
of 180 nations evaluated. It’s quite pathetic.

With the acquittal of Revilla and the release of Estrada on bail this year, I am
certain our global rankings will take a new plunge next year.

The Philippines presently stands at 56th place in terms of global

competitiveness. Looking at the various components of our assessment, it is
clear that our weak institutions, principally our justice system, are dragging us
down. This is because many judges are abettors of corruption and crime, not
champions against it.

Until they are obliterated, the nation will never be free from the cancer of
corruption. Our justice system is broken; it is the weakest link in our nation.

lunder examines the dark side of the Rule of Law and explores how it has been used as a powerful
political weapon by Western countries in order to legitimize plunder - the practice of violent
extraction by stronger political actors victimizing weaker ones. Challenges traditionally held beliefs in
the sanctity of the Rule of Law by exposing its dark side. Examines the Rule of Law's relationship
with 'plunder' - the practice of violent extraction by stronger political actors victimizing weaker ones -
in the service of Western cultural and economic domination. Provides global examples of plunder: of
oil in Iraq; of ideas in the form of Western patents and intellectual property rights imposed on weaker
peoples; and of liberty in the United States. Dares to ask the paradoxical question - is the Rule of
Law itself illegal?

Plunder sounds like such a dark crime. The truth is, if it is committed by a high-ranking
public official like a president (or a senator for that matter), it becomes glamorous. It is
one of those crimes that “does” pay. How? By the exercise of presidential pardon. Yes,
pardon for the plunderer obliterates the crime, and in Philippine politics, even the stain.

In a leading case, our Supreme Court (SC) resigned to the effects of absolute pardon
granted by the president to one found guilty – “it releases the punishment and blots out
the existence of guilt, so that in the eyes of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he
never committed the offense.” The SC went on to opine on what remains to be the
penalty of the pardoned. It said that pardon “cannot bring back lost reputation for
honesty, integrity and fair dealing.” How so untrue this is when you talk about Philippine
politics.

Former president Joseph Estrada, who vowed to reduce corruption in government by 80

percent before the end of his term, ended up being found guilty of plunder (in
connection with, among others, misappropriation of excise tax on tobacco and the Jose
Velarde account). He was pardoned by then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Thereafter, people ignored his conviction and elected him mayor of Manila, and he
remains a strong political figure.

A president would want to pardon because of the inverse golden rule: Do unto others
what you want others to do unto you. Pardon a past president, so the next president can
pardon you too.

To be fair, this is not an exclusive Philippine phenomenon. It happens in the US. But in
US politics, there is consequence. Then president Gerald Ford pardoned former
president Richard Nixon for the Watergate scandal, then Ford lost to president Jimmy
Carter in the next election with the Americans feeling betrayed over the Nixon pardon.
This consequence is, however, not a risk in the Philippines. Our presidents have only a
one-time six-year term, and they cannot seek reelection. They can make unpopular
pardons because they will not court votes for reelection anyway.

I have always wondered what the wisdom is behind creating a separate Plunder Law
from the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It’s for ill-gotten wealth of at least P50
million, but lawyers have used the defense that for plunder to happen, in the law, there
must be a series of acts in perpetuating the crime. This is an added burden to prove
guilt versus regular graft and corruption where one isolated transaction can already be a
sufficient ground. The original anti-graft law could have just been amended to increase
penalties based on certain aggravating circumstances.

Let me connect though with many of my readers. For regular folks dealing with the
government, their problem is not government folks committing plunder or high-profile
graft, but those sitting on their papers, or giving them the runaround, with unreasonable
requirements and unreasonable delays.

Let me tell you that unless the government staff is doing this to extract money, there is
no crime committed, but this is the important lesson I would impart. You may not have
the grounds to file a case before the Ombudsman against the government official
unreasonably withholding action on your papers, but you can file a grievance before the
Public Assistance Office of the Office of the Ombudsman. I used this only once (so far)
during my lifetime out of severe frustration. We never got to the mediation process
because the local government became kind enough to expedite our request.

Back to plunder. Only the president can control the extent of his pardon. He could
pardon out of mercy and say the public official pardoned cannot run for or hold public
office anymore. There is no legal basis, however, to compel the pardoning president to
qualify his pardon.

What could be demanded, though, is for the pardoned public official to return all the
money he amassed through plunder. The Constitution gave the president giving the
pardon the power to “remit fines and forfeitures.” In other words, to condone penalties,
do not to allow the pardoned public official to keep what he stole. Thus, the people have
the right to demand full transparency and accounting on this civil aspect.

Any president, with all his pardon powers, can liberate the criminal from jail time, and
even allow him to run again for public office, sad as it may be. But the president must
see to it that at least, all that was plundered is recovered. This is not penalty. This is
returning money stolen from the people. To allow the pardoned to keep what he stole is
to penalize hapless Filipino citizens so that a criminal can enjoy the fruits of his crime. A
grave injustice that can make pardon a darker crime than plunder itself.