It’s adding insult to injury with the way he protected Rico Puno, his shooting buddy whom he appointed undersecretary in the Department of Interior and Local Government. He accepted Puno’s resignation last Sept. 11.
The House of Representatives spared the public another farce by dropping the planned investigation on the alleged overpriced purchase of firearms for the Philippine National Police and the conflicting versions of Puno’s role in securing the documents on the deal, which included a report questioning his trip to Israel to visit the manufacturing plant of one of the bidders, the Israeli Military Industries.
If Puno was able to get away with stonewalling Sen. Miriam Santiago, chair of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws, who conducted hearing, the congressmen are not expected to fare better when it comes to ferreting out the truth. They won’t dare antagonize Malacañang.
At least with Santiago, she was able to show the public how incredible Puno’s story about his trip to Israel last May which would have been a grounds for him to be charged with violation of the Republic Act 6713, Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees which states “ Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.”
In the Aug. 8 memorandum by a group that the late Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo assigned to investigate the purchase nearly 60,000 handguns, it was mentioned that, Puno,together with former director of the Philippine National Police Special Action Force Leocadio Santiago, Ramiro Lopez III, an observer for the bids and awards committee, and Reynaldo Espineli, president of R. Espineli & Co., left the country on May 10 to accept the tour invitation of Israel Military Industries (IMI). Espineli is IMI’s local partner.
VERA Files had a story that IMI has been blacklisted by the Indian government for corruption.
The memorandum stated: “Bureau of Immigration records show the group left for Dubai (no direct flight to Israel) together on May 10m 2012, the date also of the 2nd pre-bid conference for the procurement of the 1,500 Assault Rifle 5.56 mm and returned on the same flight from Dubai on May 20,2012.
“Being an observer and resource person of the ongoing PNP NHQ bidding, such action has possible conflict of interest in the contract being bid out and might impair the integrity of the bidding process.”
At the Senate hearing, Puno, cool and confident, said his trip to Israel was a family vacation to Jerusalem. He said he was on leave May 11 – 18, 2012.
So how come he was in the company of Santiago,Lopez and Espeneli to Tel-Aviv?
He said met Santiago at the airport, who invited him to a test firing of some rifles. ““Being an enthusiast myself, I joined him for one day only and I continued on,” he said.
What pleasant coincidence!
Why would Santiago, a retired PNP officer, be test firing in the plant of a PNP potential supplier?
If it was a family vacation, why was Lopez, a BAC PNP observer, with him?
Puno’s tale: Lopez is his consultant and he does research on some items being procured by the PNP. He also arranges his trips.
He said Lopez paid for his own trip.
Miriam said:“Yayo siya ng pamilya mo? You are going on a private holiday and you are with your consultant? You are testing my level of belief with your assertions.”
Santiago sarcastically remarked that he should lend her Lopez next time she travels overseas. She likes a consultant who can buy his own ticket and look after her in her trips.
Santiago’s sarcasm failed to rattle Puno who replied: “I will tell him.”
Clearly Puno was lying.
Since Aquino did not say anything about sanctioning Puno (in fact he said he will be given another position), does it mean he believes Puno’s incredible story?
Pity the Filipino people.
Iba talaga ang gun buddy at katagayan, kapit ang pinagsasamahan!
Noynoy Aquino and Rico Puno, incredible pair directing Pinas to a Baluktot na Daan!
Katanga ng maniniwala sa web of coincidences and lies ni Puno as narrated above.
The only wayvyou can punish an invited resource individual testifying under oath if for committing perjury.. So why not the inquiry panel had Puno prove for Perjury if they believe he was lying under oath? That is why this inquiry bound to fail since there is no assurance that testimonies by witnesses and resource individual be not used to incriminate them in other proceedings. Now I’d they admit wrongdoings and evidence be used against them in the court of law , they just pleaded themselves guilty to the deeds before the investigation for aid in legislation. Most would rather take their chances in the court of law where the quantum of evidence for conviction is on the shoulders of the state prosecutors. This type of inquiry is Self Defeating.
Baka maraming alam na “dark” secrets ni PNoy si Rico. Baka bweltahan siya at pumiyok kapag kinasuhan siya ni PNoy. 😛
Kung nagkataon mag-aala Chavit at mang sabit. 😛
Moral lesson, wag kunin o ilagay sa isang pwestong pwedeng pagkakitaan ng malaking halaga ang isang matalik na kaibigan. 😛
Ellen,
Agree ako kay #3. Kung nag perjure si Puno bakit di binanatan ni Brenda?
Sinundan ko din itong kwentong Puno. Madami ngang mga suspicious coincidences, timelines, atbp. Pero ang problema ay walang ebidensya na magsasabit kay Puno, at least base sa mga news reports na lumabas so far.
Akala ko slam-dunk ang sabit ni Puno nung unang lumabas ang mga kwento pero nung nagbigay ng side si Puno mukhang supalpal naman ang mga tumira sa kanya.
So ano nga ba ang tunay na storya, kung meron man? Wala ba jan reporter o abogado na makakapag layout ng kaso laban kay Puno na nakabase sa ebidensiya?
This whole thing reminds me of the story about the P40M White Plains house of Sec. Ochoa. Mukhang guilty, mukhang may sabit pero nung kinutkut wala naman ebidensya.
Not to say these two guys are clean. All I’m saying is for God’s sake let’s at least have something to hang on them before we accuse them of anything.
pity the filipino people?
matagal nang kawawa ang mga pinoy, hindi lang ngayon kung sakali.
trademark na ‘yan ng mga namumuno o nag-aambisyong mamuno.
sino pa nga ba ang ilalagay nila sa puwesto kundi ‘yung malalapit sa kanila?
‘ika nga – looting samasama together, happily laughing all the way!
Napakahalaga ang perception ng publiko sa isang pangulo ng bansa. At kung si Rico Puno lamang ang magpapa-dive sa napakataas na approval rating ni Noynoy ay dapat na syang isakripisyo ng presidente.
Sino ba talaga ng bossing ni Pnoy, ang publiko o si Rico?
Hindi ba nararamdaman ni Pnoy ang poot ng tao kay Rico? Ano yan, against all odds for Rico?
@7 the reason why inquiries in commonwealth countries including the former HongKong were successful in ferrying the facts is firstly.. The legislator will usually call an independent Body to conduct the inquiry with defined mandate as to its objective, power questions that needed answered and timeline were reports and recommendations for legislative measures or policy making are expected. But in every circumstances these inquiries should not PreEmpt any other investigation that is being conducted by duly constituted police agencies be it for Criminal matter or internall matter. And in every inquiry the testimonies can not be used for any other proceedings other than for prosecution of perjury committed before the inquiry. This is being done to encourage every resource person to tell the truth and if testimonies will cause to embarrass personalities the inquiry panel will have to make a decision to hear them on camera and in Confidence. And it should be Blameless. The police investigation will be the one looking for the blame but never the inquiry forAid to Legislation. There is no grandstanding but orderly and respectful conduct all the way. Also counsel will be provided at the govt expense as they are all invited guest even some are summoned for their appearance.
@11. In my column in interaksyon.com – “Just hand Puno to the Ombudsman, Mr. President” – I proposed that whenever any member of the cabinet or anyone perceived as personally close to the president is accused of wrongdoing, the Palace should just turn over the investigation to the ombudsman para walang accusations of whitewash kung ma clear ng internal investigation yun pinagsususpetsahan. At para mawala ang bahid ng politika sa imbestigasyon. For the first time in many years we have a credible ombudsman, bakit hindi natin gamitin?
#12
Manuel,
If the ombudsman now is credible, she should have acted on the case already and need not wait for anyone to bring the case to her. I think the phrase that Atty. SNV have mentioned in another thread is “motu proprio.”
#12. Why not? That makes a lot of sense.
#13. Hmmm, Mike subok lang at ng magkakilanlan.
@ 12 the president or even the Senate can ask or call upon the appropriate investigating agency to initiate the probe. It could be the COA and if it finds ther is something fishy can ask the NBI to get involve and then forward the files to the Ombuds for decision. Ther is always a process on how to do these stuff. Or it can go the other way around. Just like if is a matter of financial crime, you call on the auditors first to investigate the probabilities and if the auditors said that there are, then the police is called upon to join in.. Now if the inquiry is for “accidents” and calamities of course you have to call for Coroner to conduct an investigation ..that way you will get result.
why focus on puno alone? in my view, he is no different than the others during the arroyo admin and yet they seems to just fade away. Anyway, in my opinion no one made a direct accusation that he profited in the gun deal? unlike the others who made hundred millions if not billions and yet they are still out there enjoying their loot. Maniniwala sana ako ke senadora but she seems to be inconsistent..like depending know criminals and at the same time act as if taking the cudgels to run after them??? as if she protect her friends or personalities she like and yet mean to the once she doe’snt like. I rather see her push the RH Bill, FOI Bill, and question the libel portion of the recently approved cybercrime law…seems to be in conflict with our bill of rights??
The idea of going directly to the Ombuds is one deserve to be explored. It is streamline and if it works it will simplify the process. And that will put the trust back into the institutions. Let us try this process instead of the divisive and often nonresult yielding Senate inquiry. And the Senate can get their Aid for legislation on the result of the Ombudaman investigation.
Sana pnoy focuses more on having a very improved and professional DOJ prosecutoral services. One can’t stop crime with many in the DOJ can be bribed.
and Sereno focuses more on better supervision of COMELEC. Comelec also is weak, ganun din ang issue lalo na sa mga probinsya. How can one have a good mayor or local representatives when the one least deserving sit in office dahil nababayaran ang comelec sa local! opinyon lang po.
@ 16 the newly passed anti cybercrime law could be challenged against the Bill of rights by the accused if he believes it is unconstitutional. And it will be the courts to decide if the law he is accused of is constitutional or not. That is the very first order for the new statute in the book, being challenged for its constitutionality .. That is why legislators should be very extra careful in enacting laws and if necessary secure an opinion of the SC in reference before finally enacting the law.. But it would still be subjected to challenge. It is the right of every accused.
@19..I know but my issue is that I expect our knowledgeable representatives in Congress, like the likes of Senator Santiago, to make sure or at least look into this before concurring and making this a law and let us know if this is indeed for the benefit and within the bounds of our constitution instead of focusing on something like a puno issue and yet have done nothing to improve what needs to be improve to combat criminality in our government. I agree with other contents of the Cyber crime Law but libel? parang siningit? Also, why challenge the challenge pinahirapan pa ang napagbudahan? kung totoo pano yan..libelous in context na rin? I’m not an expert but one need not be an expert to see something sinister is inserted that twist the entire intent of the law in my view. Meron na ngang laws about libel..improve na lang kelangan? if only they are doing their job or promote good governance instead of partisan politiking? sayang ang pork barrel 🙂
in simple la’ang naman.
hudas, este who does penoy want to stay with, ‘yung sinasabi niyang kanyang mga boss or his klasmeyt?
pakitsek nga ‘yung sinasabing petsa na tumulak patungong herusalem si punong lumbalumba kung totoong kasama nga ba ang pamilya?
“… that that particular department is a very sensitive department, marami po ‘yang mga trabahong pinapalakad and we hope that the position will be filled at the soonest possible time.” – Abigail Valte
Yun naman pala eh, kung talagang napaka imporatante ng DILG, bakit nung si Robredo eh pa-bandying bandying ang pag appoint sa kanya at kahati pa niya sa posisiyon si Puno? #justsaying
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/274594/news/nation/palace-to-sen-santiago-dilg-secretary-a-sensitive-post-should-be-filled-asap
Puno!!!
Pwedeng sabihing “Puno ng katangahan o Puno ng kabobohan.”
Pwede ring “Puno ng kawalanghiyaan.”
Either of the 3 applies.
Pwede ring “Puno ng kakapalan.”