He returned the money, with interest

“17. Around 2000, I was introduced to then Congressman Florencio Abad by Mr. Manuel Jarmin. We met at the Japanese Restaurant in Edsa Shangri-la Plaza Hotel. In that meeting, he told me about a project worth 10 million pesos. He showed me the Special Allotment Release Order (Saro) then explained to me what it was for. Before the meeting ended, I handed him P2 Million Pesos. When the Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA) was released, I gave him another Php 2 Million Pesos. Afterwards, when we talked about the implementation, he asked me if I had an NGO. When I told him I did not have an NGO, he told me he would take care of it. From what I recall, he used Batanes Electric Cooperative to implement the project. After some time, he returned the Php 4 Million Pesos I gave him with an added P2 Million Pesos more. That is when I started to transact using the PDAF.”

Thus did Janet Napoles first involve Butch Abad in the pork barrel scam. The preceding paragraph is a portion of her affidavit dated May 12, 2014. It is on page 5 of the 57-page affidavit. It is paragraph 17 of the 181-paragraph document, and it is under the section titled “General Background of the Transactions.” This affidavit limited itself to her involvement in cases already filed by the Ombudsman: Malampaya Fund (vs Gloria Macapagal Arroyo), the three senators, and five congressmen.

In her May 26, 2014, affidavit, a 33-page document written in Filipino, Napoles supplied even more information, on over 50 or so agents she was working with and the senators/congressmen they handled. Here, under agent Manuel Jarmin, she listed Abad, and essentially repeated what she said in the May 12 affidavit, with two exceptions: She omitted the date of the meeting (2000), and she added the restaurant “Cravings” as the place where the second P2 million was allegedly given to Abad.

On the basis of these documents, Abad, as well as his family, has been pilloried. He now is the “brains” of the pork barrel scam, and his resignation is being demanded. If the calls came only from the opposition, it would be perfectly understandable. But you’ve got a retired bishop and a highly respected nun, among others, behind the calls. That’s what I don’t get.

Why not?

Well, just look at Napoles’ affidavit. She mentions a Saro, an NCA, and even a nongovernment organization, Batanes Electric Cooperative (Batanelco). That could provide a paper trail a mile long. And yet she has none to show. On the other hand, Abad, after he saw the affidavit, called the National Electrification Administration (NEA, the government agency which would have to be involved) and asked about a P10-million project involving Batanelco.

There was no such project in the NEA’s records for 2000. What its records show was that on Jan. 4, 2000, a disbursement voucher was made out to Batanelco for P4 million (less 3.5-percent service charge), NOT out of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (Abad’s or anybody else), but out of a P67-million subsidy fund that is part of the NEA’s budget for just such expenditures. The Batanelco records also show the same thing, backed by the list of materials to be procured (up to the smallest P3.58 unit cost item).

In other words, no Saro, no NCA, no project for Batanelco in 2000. Napoles’ story was made out of whole cloth.

But wait. Consider what else she said: She gave P2 million to Abad (the first time they met) when he showed her the Saro, another P2 million when he showed her the NCA, after which they apparently chose Batanelco as the NGO. Got it? And then, she goes on to say, “After some time, HE RETURNED THE P4 MILLION I GAVE HIM WITH AN ADDED P2 MILLION PESOS MORE….” Huh?

In other words, Napoles gave Abad P4 million, but he not only returned it to her, he also returned it with interest of P2 million (that comes out to 50 percent). Abad did not gain from the deal, he lost P2 million on it. How does that make him the brains of the scam?

By the way, based on her two affidavits, Napoles never received interest on her advances from any of the other congressmen and senators she mentions. So what does that make of Abad?

There are other points that I want to make with respect to the Napoles affidavits as they touch on Abad. First, I notice that Jarmin, supposedly Abad’s “agent,” is unlike the other agents that Napoles mentions (about 50 of them). These others are closely connected to their principals—chiefs of staff or staff members of legislators, or related to them in some way (daughter, uncle, etc.). Jarmin has no relationship, officially or otherwise, with Abad.

Second, I found it strange that since Abad was her “mentor,” Napoles does not mention any other transaction with him except the 2000 one. If they were so buddy-buddy with each other, how come no other Abad projects came in?

But these are peripheral points. What I have tried to show is that Napoles’ statements about Abad in her affidavits are baseless (based on the records of the agencies concerned) or incredible (he paid her rather than she paying him).

Should Abad resign? Certainly not. The charges against him hold no water under the most perfunctory of scrutiny. But also because he is doing a good job as budget secretary—as he did in his short stint as agrarian reform secretary under Cory Aquino, and as education secretary under Gloria Arroyo. We need more like him.

Does this mean that Napoles’ statements with regard to the others are to be disregarded completely? Not at all. But they should certainly not be taken on faith. Let’s do our homework properly.