Matugas: Plunder case baseless, perjurious

Anent the news article “P64M in pork used as ‘intel funds’” (Across the Nation, 9/5/13) by Danilo Adorador, I wish to express my side on the matter.

The case of plunder against me has no legal or factual basis for at least five reasons:

Firstly, the allocations involved in the controversy do not hurdle the threshold amount for a case of plunder. The complainants (Fernando Almeda Jr. et al.) included amounts allocated by Rep. Guillermo A. Romarate Jr. from his own Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to make it appear that the allocations totaled close to P64 million. In fact, I filed a case of perjury against my accusers for their deliberate falsehood and I detailed therein by documentary evidence the disparity between their allegations against the allocations actually made available. A copy of my complaint, which I can provide to anyone interested, is with the office of the Surigao City prosecutor.

• Secondly, I did not personally receive those amounts myself. These were deposited to the accounts of the respective municipalities by the Department of Budget and Management. Almeda et al.’s complaint did not contain any single evidence to show that I illegally took those amounts for myself, if we are to follow the definition of the crime of plunder.

• Thirdly, the allocations in question went through the usual process—a request was made by my office; they were endorsed by the House committee on appropriations, and approved and released by the DBM.

• Fourthly, before the allocations were requested, the local government units sought the legal opinion of the Department of Interior and Local Government, and Undersecretary Austere Panadero issued an opinion “that there is no legal impediment to such allocation for intelligence or anti-insurgency purposes.” The LGUs relied solely on such legal opinion on the use of the funds as intelligence/counterinsurgency funds.

• Lastly, the Commission on Audit ruling cited is not yet final. A Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling is still pending as of this writing. While it is true that the COA initially disallowed the use of the funds as intelligence funds, we presented several points to show there was nothing irregular or illegal in such use.

As to my allocation of some of my PDAF to certain nongovernment organizations, documents would show that the three NGOs are not bogus and that they complied with liquidation procedures imposed by the respective implementing agencies. As to the COA report showing some irregularities, it is clear I am not the person liable for that—it is the NGOs’ responsibility to clear themselves with the agencies concerned.

The above-mentioned case was a major issue in the last May elections; my political opponents capitalized on it, yet the Surigaonons gave me an overwhelming majority of almost 40,000 votes over my closest rival. The people of Siargao and Surigao have spoken with unmistakable voice. This issue is rehashed and obviously made by politicians with obvious ill motives. I am confident that in due time and in the proper forum it will be shown that I did nothing wrong as maliciously alleged.

—FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS, representative, first district, Surigao del Norte