You are on page 1of 37

21

Before I went under the knife for knee replacement in March, I


was kind of satisfied the way things were going with the multi-billion peso congressional pork barrel scam probe, that
there seemed to be a looming scene where three incriminated politicians cum skunks in the Senate were heading for
the calaboose. Finally I thought that the 2016 elections will be an event where lessons have been learned and changes
for the better be made with the right people being voted upon.
Now I realize how wrong I had been.
Thanks to Janet Lim Napoles and her much taunted NapoList, more politicians/skunks/scoundrels are being
unmasked and much to the dismay
of the Filipino people they are all, understandably and slyly, disavowing their knowledge and more so their
participation in the scam.
Shamed, disgraced and curtailed freedom by incarceration, Napoles health has taken a turn for the worse. She was
bleeding and after consultation with the doctors it was recommended that she undergo hysterectomy. This was in
April and, perhaps, entertaining the inevitable idea that if something happens to her she wanted to make sure that she
was in good graces with the Lord, Napoles decided to confess all to the DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima what she knew
and the additional personalities involved in the scam.
But in the same token the chronically scheming Napoles also politically thought that if she comes out still breathing,
her act of telling all will endear her to the public and sway their opinion into making her a state witness, thus saving
her skin.
Napoles confession, however, did not bode well for her, for the more politicians/skunks/scoundrels she has gotten
embroiled, the deeper she has gotten herself also mired in the mess and the guiltier she has become.
The scam has become so ugly, muddled and complicated that one is not sure anymore if anyone of those who
allegedly participated in the scam by defrauding the government and receiving whopping kickbacks in return will ever
go to jail.

The pathetic thing about all these revelations is that we dont even know if we will see the end of this investigation in
our lifetime and get the satisfaction that we have seen the rascals wearing the orange uniform of a prisoner with the
letter P printed on it.
But for sure we will see many of them still around continue disguising as public servants, trotting like peacocks,
innocent looking and smooth-talking as ever.
I wouldnt be surprised if those young upstart senators aiming to run in the 2016 presidential and vice presidential
race are doing it because of their sole motive to forego the PDAF scam investigation if they win.
The more that I wouldnt be surprised that sooner than later these young upstarts will stop supporting PNoy or bolt
out from the LP or the alliance and support the opposition for obvious reason.
To me, and like many Filipinos, the most agonizing and distasteful experience in the PDAF/ Malampaya and other
related scams is that the mind-boggling amount lost could have been our ticket for a more developed, cohesive and
progressive Philippines with strong army, air force and navy to boot that could at least take a stand against a bullying
nation and not owning proudly a dilapidated navy ship LT57 BRP Sierra Madre that cant do anything at all to secure
our seas.

Janet Lim Napoles: A PDAF-Queen Turned State Witness?


With the successful removal of benign tumor of Janet Lim Napoles, comes with the explosion of some meaty
revelation in the media just very recently. In fact, before the said operation, Janet Lim Napoles had already a long
talk with Department of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima over her plan to divulge the "tell-all" expose' of information
she has with the PDAF controversy. And what is the deal? To turn her a State Witness to prove the guilt of her other
co-accused.
In the previous post, it was discussed already what are the requisites of becoming a state witness. For more
information, please visit this http://dailyservingoflegalmatters.blogspot.com/2014/02/requisites-of-state-witness.html.
So what would be the process for Janet Lim Napoles to eventually become a State Witness?
"Upon Motion of the Prosecution Before Resting Its Case"
Before an accused is discharged as a State Witness, it is the duty of the prosecution to file a motion to ask from the
court to discharge one or more than one of the accused. It is not Janet Lim Napoles that would ask the court for her
discharge but the prosecution. Thus, her meeting with the DOJ's De Lima was a valid act on her camp. The initiation
to subject her into as a State Witness relies solely on the hands of the prosecutor and not in her hands. So, despite
the desire of Janet Lim Napoles to become a State Witness but if the prosecutor would not move or would not
consider her as one, then her effort would just be put in vain.
"The Court May Direct One or More of the Accused With Their Consent"
Aside from the motion of the prosecutor, the decision of the court to direct an accused to become a State Witness is
important. Whether or not the prosecutor is convinced that Janet Lim Napoles is qualified to become a State Witness
would be another story. To become a State Witness would depend entirely to the sound discretion of the court. The
court has the sole duty to direct one or more of the accused to be a State Witness.
Such decision of the court must be with the consent of the accused. In the case of Janet Lim Napoles, the fact that
she was the one proposing to the prosecution of her desire to become a State Witness, such act would tantamount to
her consent of becoming one.

But of course, the court must be satisfied that Janet Lim Napoles, in this case, must have the necessary requisites of
becoming a State Witness. To have a review of those requisites, please read below:
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused of the accused whose discharged is
requested.
2. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except
the testimony of the said accused.
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points.
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty.
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
From the requisites mentioned, Janet Lim Napoles would have a problem in requisite number 4. Considering that
she is considered as the queen of the PDAF scam, it would be in conflict to show that she does not appear to be the
most guilty. In fact, she was the mastermind allegedly in siphoning billions of people's money via her bogus NonGovernment Organizations.
If ever, Janet Lim Napoles would not qualify as a State Witness, the government would consider lowering the penalty
for her in exchange of the meaty information that she might divulge to the public instead. Allegedly this information
would shock most of the people because of a number of politicians, both in opposition and in administration, are
named parts of the scam. Without this information, the public would be left ignorant of the unscrupulous politicians
they have.
Instead of totally considering her as a State Witness, the government may propose a plea bargaining with Janet Lim
Napoles but with a condition to return all the alleged money she has amassed from the scam and she shall be meted
with lower penalty.
- See more at: http://dailyservingoflegalmatters.blogspot.com/2014/04/janet-lim-napoles-pdaf-queenturned.html#sthash.FanYVNlD.dpuf

When Justice Secretary Leila De Lima broke the news that alleged Pork Barrel Scam
Mastermind Janet Lim Napoles offered herself as a state witness last Monday, the peoples
reaction ranged from animosity to backlash from different camps.
In an interview with ANCs Headstart, Lawyer Raymond Fortun claimed that legal-wise,
Napoles cannot become a state witness because she was the so-called architect of the whole
scam.
Fortun said that under Section 17, Rule 190 of the Rules of Court, any person who wish to apply
as a state witness must not be the most guilty.
In this particular instance, and this is my perception, she is the most guilty; she is the
mastermind of this, Fortun added.
Fortun also questioned the validity of testimony and information coming from Napoles which
she had not given when she swore an oath during her appearance at the Pork Barrel Hearing.
For the justice secretary to now speak with the principal suspect before even the start of trial,
this creates a lot of questions on the minds of the public as to why this move is being done at this
time, Fortun questioned.

For her now to say that she will tell all, as I said, if I were the Justice Secretary, I would not
even bother to consider her for any kind of testimony because when I got to court and I present
her, there are just so many loopholes that can be hit on her, Fortun added.
This particular perception was backed-up by the lawyers of the whistleblowers who claimed that
she is not fitting to be one.
We are concerned about rumors that Napoles is applying for immunity. Napoles is not
fit, Lawyer Raji Mendoza, Benhur Luys counsel said in a televised press conference.
The lawyers also stated that if Napoles were given the chance to become a state witness, it will
do more harm than help in the hearing.
In an interview with GMAs News to Go, Mendoza opened the implications of having Napoles
aboard as part of the panel of witnesseswhether a state or ordinary witness.
Mendoza said there is a big possibility that her testimony and whatever information she might
bring up may contradict whatever Luy had already provided. The biggest fear of the camp is that
Napoles might claim that she is not the mastermind of the whole scam.
She might meddle with it all. She might say that : the real mastermind is Benhur. He is the one
who knew how to do business. My relatives are the one who are truly managing it. Im merely a
financier. A sponsor, Mendoza
Poster woman Janet cant be state witness
-

AA A

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

WHAT'S the effect of President Noynoy Aquino saying publicly that Janet Napoles cannot be not the most guilty if
shes the center of it all?
While the ombudsman (whos a woman) is an independent constitutional officer, she cant ignore the Presidents
reminder. She must consider what PNoy thinks, especially when he appears to be right.
Under the law, the requirement for the discharge of an accused to be a state witness, which PNoy has in mind, is the
one that says the accused must not appear to be the most guilty.
Janet may easily qualify as among the most guilty but is she the most guilty of all?
Line up Janet and her cohorts (her co-conspirators in her crew and the people who ran the fake NGOs and the
brokers), the legislators and their aides, the bureaucrats
bureaucrats in government agencies overseeing the projects, and others who took part in selling, implementing, and
covering up the scam. Does Janet appear to be the most guilty of them all?
Janet may easily be rated as one of, or among, the most guilty. But does she appear to be the most guilty? If she
does, then she cant qualify as a protected witness or a state witness.

Its the ombudsman who decides that. Besides the guilt factor, there are two other relevant conditions:
(1) Is there no other direct evidence to prosecute the offense except Janets testimony? (There are; the
whistleblowers have enough ammunition to blast Janet away.)
(2) Is there absolute necessity for her testimony? (No, as there are other testimonies available plus Janets own
verified admission of the crimes.)
Besides, how would it look if the crimes poster woman, the face of the mammoth fraud, would walk, away from the
punishment and sanctions?
What was husband Jimmys role in scam?
PROBABLY YOU DIDNT KNOW...
... JANET NAPOLESS HUSBAND, JIMMY, was very much a part of the crime of the decade, although he had been
self-effacing and had maintained a low profile.
Prosecutors though still have to establish evidence that the actual brains in the bogus NGOs that pulled the pork
barrel scam was the husband, not the wife. The wife, or so the theory runs, was the marketing woman, the face the
clients saw and met with, the front person they received cash advances and kickbacks from.
... LEILA DE LIMA in 2013 put off her senatorial plan because of poor ratings in the surveys among candidates but
maybe shed do better in 2016.
Former senator Ping Lacson told news reporters at De Limas May 15 meeting with Senate blue ribbon committee
head TJ Guingona: Dont forget. Vote de Lima for senator. That was more than a joke.
De Lima asked the reporters not to take Pings remark seriously. She was too disconcerted not to quip back, Dont
forget. Lacson for senator.
Or maybe not. She was just being cautious. Her bosss bet for president is Mar Roxas.
[WHAT'S the effect of President Noynoy Aquino saying publicly that Janet Napoles cannot be not the most guilty if
shes the center of it all?
While the ombudsman (whos a woman) is an independent constitutional officer, she cant ignore the Presidents
reminder. She must consider what PNoy thinks, especially when he appears to be right.
Under the law, the requirement for the discharge of an accused to be a state witness, which PNoy has in mind, is the
one that says the accused must not appear to be the most guilty.
Janet may easily qualify as among the most guilty but is she the most guilty of all?
Line up Janet and her cohorts (her co-conspirators in her crew and the people who ran the fake NGOs and the
brokers), the legislators and their aides, the bureaucrats in government agencies overseeing the projects, and others
who took part in selling, implementing, and covering up the scam. Does Janet appear to be the most guilty of them
all?
Janet may easily be rated as one of, or among, the most guilty. But does she appear to be the most guilty? If she
does, then she cant qualify as a protected witness or a state witness.
Its the ombudsman who decides that. Besides the guilt factor, there are two other relevant conditions:

(1) Is there no other direct evidence to prosecute the offense except Janets testimony? (There are; the
whistleblowers have enough ammunition to blast Janet away.)
(2) Is there absolute necessity for her testimony? (No, as there are other testimonies available plus Janets own
verified admission of the crimes.)
Besides, how would it look if the crimes poster woman, the face of the mammoth fraud, would walk, away from the
punishment and sanctions?
What was husband Jimmys role in scam?
PROBABLY YOU DIDNT KNOW...
... JANET NAPOLESS HUSBAND, JIMMY, was very much a part of the crime of the decade, although he had been
self-effacing and had maintained a low profile.
Prosecutors though still have to establish evidence that the actual brains in the bogus NGOs that pulled the pork
barrel scam was the husband, not the wife. The wife, or so the theory runs, was the marketing woman, the face the
clients saw and met with, the front person they received cash advances and kickbacks from.
... LEILA DE LIMA in 2013 put off her senatorial plan because of poor ratings in the surveys among candidates but
maybe shed do better in 2016.
Former senator Ping Lacson told news reporters at De Limas May 15 meeting with Senate blue ribbon committee
head TJ Guingona: Dont forget. Vote de Lima for senator. That was more than a joke.
De Lima asked the reporters not to take Pings remark seriously. She was too disconcerted not to quip back, Dont
forget. Lacson for senator.
Or maybe not. She was just being cautious. Her bosss bet for president is Mar Roxas.

The three Senators who have been accused of using their assigned Priority Development Assistance
Funds (PDAF) for themselves protest their innocence and ascribe politics for their prosecution by the
Department of Justice. Instead, they cry political persecution.
When the apparent mastermind, Businesswoman Janet :om Napoles, who owned the fake NGOs
through which government agencies gave the money from the PDAFs that found their way back into the
legislators pockets was called to testify in the Senate, she said nothing and even denied dealing with the
thee Senators, who were caught by the Commission on Audit as having dealt with Napoles and profited
from knowing her, she denied everything.
Recently, however, faced with an operation for a cyst that was turning cancerous (according to the postoperation statement of her doctor), Napoles decided to talk to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. The
realization of her human frailty and the fear that her operation could turn bad probably did her in,
At Secretary De Limas press conference after their long talk (five hours) with the mastermind of the
PDAF Scam, Janet Lim Napoles, the Secretary said that the government now has a strong case t against
the three Senators. In answer to a reporters question whether Napoles, spilled the beans on the
three senators, the Justice Secretary replied, Oh, yes. Absolutely.

Of course, the three accuse De Lima of again playing politics. After all, De Lima admitted that she cleared
her plan to have a long talk with Napoles with the President before actually doing so.
Malacanang says that the administration never closed the door on Napoles eventually telling all. De
Lima adds that this was the reason Napoles was detained at the Police camp in Sta. Rosa, Laguna,
because they were certain that Napoles would eventually spill the beans.
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, a lawyer, says: The meeting between President Aquino
and Justice Secretary De Lima as she stated yesterday was that she had asked for permission before
meeting with Ms. Janet Napoles. She informed the President, and the President just instructed her to
listen to the testimony and evaluate.
She briefed the President afterwards and its still the same instruction given to Secretary Leila de
Lima: To evaluate the testimony given by or whatever statements that Ms. Janet Napoles gave.
Lacierda clarified that the statement of Napoles would have to first be evaluated and would have to be
validated by the agents of the National Bureau of Investigation.
De Lima also clarified that she made no commitments to Napoles about making her a State
Witness in exchange for the information she gave.
Napoles told de Lima that she feared for her security. Most likely, she feared mortality, a common
fear before a major operation
That was one of the reasons why she decided to speak to Secretary Leila de Lima. And whatever
motivations that Ms. Janet Napoles has is only between her and only with herself, Lacierda said.
Among the conditions of De Lima for talking to Napoles was that whatever hse told the Justice
Secretary would be evaluated and checked by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. There was
no talk of Napoles becoming a State witness
Atty, Lacierda explains: That has to go through the process of evaluation. And remember, the
final arbiter to that would be the Sandiganbayan, because the Ombudsman will also evaluate if she can
properly be discharged as a state witness.
While she gave nothing away when she was investigated by the Senate, apparently, Napoles has
now changed her mind and is willing to tell all about what she knew of the fund scam.
Again, since she is willing to tell all, and certainly we cannot close the door. As part of the quest
to search for the truth, all avenues must be explored, says Lacierda.
Senate President Franklin Drilon that But as far as the plunder case involving the so-called pork
barrel scandal, the ball is already in the hands of the Office of the Ombudsman, particularly the matter
of securing state witnesses and not the Department of Justice.
The ball is in the court of the Ombudsman insofar as determining who is to be names a state
witness. In this case, since there has been no case before the Sandiganbayan. It is still with the
Ombudsman. That is why it is still within the control of the Ombudsman on who is to be made a state
witness. There are certain criteria under the Witness Protection Program and the Rules of Court. First,
the witness must be the least guilty at not the most guilty. Second, the testimony is needed to convict
the principal accused, Senate President Franklin Drilon says.
Should mastermind of the PDAF Scam be made a State Witness and the cases against her dropped?

Partylist (1-Bap) Congressman Sylvestre Bello III, a former Justice Secretary says that he does not think
Napoles is the most guilty: If she will tell all, why not. After all to my mind, she is not the most
guilty.
After all, in the misuse of public funds, shouldnt the public official be the more guilty than civilians who
are not on the government payroll?
Drilon cautioned his Senate colleagues who are now pushing for the re-opening of the inquiry by the
blue ribbon committee on pork barrel scam, although admittedly he said that theres no barring the
panel from continuing where they left off especially if the draft committee report is yet to be signed by
the majority of its members.
If the majority report has not been signed by the majority members of the blue ribbon
committee, this means that this has not been closed and its up to Sen. TG Guingona whether to re-open
the inquiry.
***
According to the posted rules of the witness program as administered by the Department of
Justice any person who has knowledge of or information on the commission of a crime and has testified
or is testifying or is willing to testify.
Likewise qualified are witnesses who participated in the commission of a crime and who desires
to be a State witness and an accused who is discharged from an information or criminal complaint by
the court in order that he may be a State witness.
####

hvp 04.23.14
Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your
reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@yahoo.com
President Benigno Aquino III said on Monday, Janet Lim Janet Lim Napoles is not qualified to get a state witness because she
seems to be the most guilty in the pork barrel scam.
The President, who was in Legazpi City for the opening of a World Tourism Organization summit, told reporters that under
Section 17, Rule 190, of the Rules of Court, the witness applying must not be the most guilty, and Napoles does not meet that
requirement.
Because she is at the center of it altogether, she is the common connection of all, I guess its difficult to read at this point,
from what I understand, how are we travelling to allege she is not the most guilty if she is at the center of it entirely? He
said.
Benigno hinted that some masses may be trying to muddle up the issue surrounding supposed lists of lawmakers and government
officials who benefited from the scam by making it seem that everyone is guilty.
He said the Department of Justice is also checking Napoles statements for veracity but admitted that the discrepancies in the
Napoles lists are questionable.

Are we expecting at the present state that everything coming from her is true? Aquino asked.
If Napoles tells the truth then it will help. If she isnt telling the truth, it will help too because you need to support your lies with
truth, he said.
Napoles is detained at Fort Santo Domingo in Santa Rosa, Laguna, on plunder charges related to the pork barrel scandal.
Told Reporters on Monday Even as the President raised the possibility of the government turning down Napoles as a state
witness, her lawyer, Bruce Rivera, that his client has come up with the names of three more senators involved in the questionable
disbursement of their priority development assistance fund (PDAF) or pork barrel.
The names surfaced after Napoles went through her transaction records again, Rivera said.
Rivera said in a television interview At least three more senators will be included in the list. I dont want to say if they are
incumbent or not,
He added that the transactions between the senators and Napoles happened back in 2000, and the three senators names could
have slipped her mind.
It was a very long list of transactions and you tend to forget. She does not have a photographic memory that you know every
nook and cranny, Rivera said

State Witnesses
With the ouster of Erap, criminal charges may now be filed against him for the offenses he
committed while he was in office. Because of this, most of his cronies have abandoned him and
have expressed their desire to turn into state witnesses. But are these people really qualified to
become witnesses for the State or are they just trying to save their own skins by trying to cut a
deal? We shall now examine the pertinent laws in the discharge of a witness.
REQUIREMENTS OF DISCHARGE:
Who can be a state witness? This query is addressed by Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court, to wit:
Sec. 9. Discharge of accused to be state witness.
When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion
of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be
discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when after requiring the
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a
hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;


(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the
court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence.
As can be gleaned from above, there are five qualifications in order for a person to be a state
witness. We shall now discuss each qualification one by one:
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested.
This requirement is aimed to curtail miscarriage of justice. Absolute necessity of the testimony
of the defendant, whose discharge is requested must be shown, if the discharge is to be allowed,
and it is the court upon which the power to determine the necessity is lodged.
2. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused.
The discharge of the witness may only be made if he alone has knowledge of the crime and not
when his testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the evidence in the hands
of the prosecution.
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points.
This is an indispensable requirement because it is a known fact in human nature that a culprit
confessing a crime is likely to put the blame on others rather than himself.
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty.
The law only requires is that the defendant whose exclusion is requested does not appear to be
the most guilty, not necessarily that he is the least guilty.
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Moral turpitude is defined as anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle or good
morals. In this requirement prior conviction is necessary, so if the witness being discharged was
merely accused of a crime involving moral turpitude or has been acquitted of the same, he is still
eligible for discharge.
EFFECT OF DISCHARGE:
The discharge of an accused operates as acquittal and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the
same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance
with his sworn statement constituting the basis for his dischrge

FAQ: On becoming a state witness


How can one become a state witness, and how one can be admitted to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Program?

Reynaldo Santos Jr.


Published 2:25 PM, Feb 09, 2014
Updated 10:44 AM, Feb 10, 2014

MANILA, Philippines Ex-presidential aide Ruby Tuason, who returned to


Manila Friday, February 7, asked authorities to admit her as a state witness in exchange for revelations that could pin
down officials involved in the pork barrel scam.
In her affidavit, Tuason reportedly confirmed the testimonies of earlier whistleblowers, admitting she received the
rebates of senators Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile on their behalf, and collecting commissions for herself in
the process. (READ: Tuason to back pork barrel scam whistleblowers)
Prior to her testimony, Tuason was slapped with 2 plunder complaints before the Ombudsman one as active
conduit in the abuse of the pork barrel, and the other relating to the alleged misuse of the Malampaya Fund.
Is her admission enough for the goverment to consider her a state witness and to provide her with the necessary
protection she requested for?
Here are some facts on how one can become a state witness, and how one can be admitted to the government's
Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Program.

1. Who is a state witness?


A person charged with the commission of a crime but who is discharged with his consent so that he/she may be a
witness for the State.
2. Who applies for the discharge of the state witness, and where is the application submitted?
The prosecution submits to the court a motion for the discharge of the state witness.
Republic Act 6981 (the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act) also states that the Department of Justice (DOJ)
can "petition the Court for [the accused's] discharge in order that he can (be) utilized as State Witness."
The court will direct the discharge of the accused after all requirements are met.
3. What are the requirements in order for an accused to be discharged as a state witness?
Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides for the following requirements:

There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused.


There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, apart from
the testimony of the accused.
The testimony of the accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points.
The accused does not appear to be the most guilty.
The accused hasn't been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

4. What is the procedure for discharging a person as a state witness?


The prosecution should file a motion to discharge the accused as state witness with his consent.
The court will require the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of the proposed state witness.

If the court is satisfied, it will discharge the state witness. But if the court denies the motion for discharge, the State
can file a petition for certiorari.
5. What are the effects of the discharge?

Evidence in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial (unless the court denies the
motion to discharge).
The discharge is equivalent to an acquittal, unless the witness fails or refuses to testify later on.

6. How can a state witness be admitted to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Program?
While the application as state witness is the domain of the court, the application for admission in the program is filed
to and approved by DOJ.
An application form may be obtained from the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Program Secretariat (at the
DOJ building in Padre Faura, Manila) or from any Regional State Prosecutor.
7. What are the requirements in order for a state witness to be admitted in the program?
RA 6981 states the same requirements listed Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court (see #3 above), but adds
another requirement:

The offense in which the accused testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised
Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws

8. Apart from the acquittal, what other benefits may a witness under the program receive?

Security protection and escort services


Secure housing facility
Assistance in obtaining a means of livelihood.
Reasonable traveling expenses and subsistence allowance while acting as a witness
Free medical treatment, hospitalization and medicine for any injury or illness incurred or suffered while
acting as a witness
Burial benefits of not less than P10,000 if the witness is killed
Free education from primary to college level for the minor or dependent children of a witness who dies or is
permanently incapacitated
Non-removal or demotion in work because of absences due to his being a witness, and payment of full
salary or wage while acting as witness

Rappler.com
Sources:
DOJ primer on the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program
RA 6981 - Witness Protection, Security and
President Benigno Aquino III said on Monday, Janet Lim Janet Lim Napoles is not qualified to get a state witness because she
seems to be the most guilty in the pork barrel scam.
The President, who was in Legazpi City for the opening of a World Tourism Organization summit, told reporters that under
Section 17, Rule 190, of the Rules of Court, the witness applying must not be the most guilty, and Napoles does not meet that
requirement.

Because she is at the center of it altogether, she is the common connection of all, I guess its difficult to read at this point,
from what I understand, how are we travelling to allege she is not the most guilty if she is at the center of it entirely? He
said.
Benigno hinted that some masses may be trying to muddle up the issue surrounding supposed lists of lawmakers and government
officials who benefited from the scam by making it seem that everyone is guilty.
He said the Department of Justice is also checking Napoles statements for veracity but admitted that the discrepancies in the
Napoles lists are questionable.
Are we expecting at the present state that everything coming from her is true? Aquino asked.
If Napoles tells the truth then it will help. If she isnt telling the truth, it will help too because you need to support your lies with
truth, he said.
Napoles is detained at Fort Santo Domingo in Santa Rosa, Laguna, on plunder charges related to the pork barrel scandal.
Told Reporters on Monday Even as the President raised the possibility of the government turning down Napoles as a state
witness, her lawyer, Bruce Rivera, that his client has come up with the names of three more senators involved in the questionable
disbursement of their priority development assistance fund (PDAF) or pork barrel.
The names surfaced after Napoles went through her transaction records again, Rivera said.
Rivera said in a television interview At least three more senators will be included in the list. I dont want to say if they are
incumbent or not,
He added that the transactions between the senators and Napoles happened back in 2000, and the three senators names could
have slipped her mind.
It was a very long list of transactions and you tend to forget. She does not have a photographic memory that you know every
nook and cranny, Rivera said

The important thing is to CONVICT the erring lawmakers. If it takes giving Napoles witness status, then so be it.

These lawmakers have stolen from us. WORST, they have committed a heinous breach of trust by doing the exact opposite
of what they have vowed to do for this country. These 'servant leaders' have betrayed us.

Napoles, while willfully a part of the scam, was a TOOL these people used to defraud all of us. I cannot imagine a civilian
(Napoles et al) being able to exercise such influence over the government bureaucracy without the assistance of these
same politicians. This cannot be a case of an organization independently offering a service to corrupt politicians, but most
likely, a collusion between Napoles and powerful individuals in BOTH the legislative and EXECUTIVE branches of
government with the intent of making the process of siphoning of our monies regimented and efficient.

If you talk about electricity, power cannot flow if the circuit is not CLOSED. There would have to be people with authority
within the legislative, executive including the COA and DBM to allow this SCAM to swing. Only, Napoles happened to be the
only one who was caught red handed (malas niya). SHE IS NOT THE MOST GUILTY party. The most guilty parties are the
ones who had the influence to directly manipulate the

mechanisms of government. The most guilty ones are the politicians and executives who exerted their authority to convince
their underlings to COMPLY.

Another aspect of Napoles's turning witness that people should consider is that this is an opportunity to ferret out the
involvement of not only the three senatorial stooges, but also to implicate those in the executive who are as guilty as
Napoles et al and the lawmakers. REMEMBER ... Napoles knows practically EVERYTHING there is to know about the
whole scam. This offer to Napoles is a bargain that can be made in STRENGTH (not weakness) to the advantage of the
whole country (Us !!!!).

This Pork Barrel Scam is a gift for all filipinos who have suffered all these decades from the exploitation of these crooked
people in power. We could have had better education (classroom, books,teachers). We could have had better hospitals. We
could have had to pay less in taxes. We could have had cheaper power. We could have had a cheaper and more viable
mass transport system. We could have a better paid and trained police force. We could have developed mindanao and had
fewer seccesionist rebels to worry about (think this through). We could have taken away from the NPA their political agenda
for existing. ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE IT'S ROOTS IN MONEY.

We should milk this golden opportunity to it's very last drop of nourishment.

This bargain should be allowed to happen

Why Napoles can't be a credible witness


by Dharel Placido, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 04/23/2014 1:37 PM | Updated as of 04/23/2014 5:34 PM

MANILA (UPDATED) - Both the former and current lawyers of pork barrel scam key whistleblower Benhur Luy believe that Janet Lim Napoles cannot
be a credible witness in the case.

Lawyers Levito Baligod and Raji Mendoza, Luy's former and current lawyers, respectively, said Napoles' previous denials of any involvement in the
scam undermine her credibility as a potential witness.

Speaking to dzMM, Baligod said a witness' ''reputation for truthfulness must be unassailable'' for one to become credible.
'
'Mae-establish ng defense na nagsisinungaling si Napoles. Iyan ang importanteng element sa isang witness - dapat wala kang reputation na
nagsisinungaling ka," he said.

''Kung magiging state witness si Napoles, sa tingin ko ang makikinabang diyan eh si Ginang Napoles at 'di ang estado."

In a separate interview on ANC, Mendoza shared Baligod's opinion, saying Napoles' new disclosures make her ''vulnerable to being impeached during
the trial."

Mendoza also noted that Napoles was under oath when she denied being part of the multi-billion peso scam before a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
hearing last November.

Justice Secretary Leila De Lima on Tuesday said Napoles expressed willingness to reveal everything she knows about the scam, which saw billions of
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) plundered by Napoles, lawmakers and bureaucrats.

De Lima, however, said there is no guarantee yet whether Napoles would be turned into a state witness, which may lead to her being dropped from the
suit.

She said this decision lies with the Office of the Ombudsman, which has indicted Napoles, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla,
Enrile's former chief of staff Gigi Reyes, and several others for plunder and graft.

'Too late'

Baligod also believes that as far as the pork barrel cases already filed before the Office of the Ombudsman are concerned, Napoles' decision to come
forward is ''too late in the day."

He explained that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can admit Napoles into the Witness Protection Program (WPP), but this would be too late as the
cases have already been submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman.

''Mukhang too late in the day na mai-admit si Ginang Napoles sa WPP kung ang patutunguhan ng testimonya niya eh laban sa nakasuhan na,'' he
said.

Baligod cited Section 3 of Republic Act 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act) that states that a person may be admitted to the WPP if he
''has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or
quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority."

''Halos tapos na ang proseso sa Ombudsman, so 'di ko alam kung saan sumasailalim ang prosesong ginagawa ngayon para kay Ginang Napoles kasi
sabi ko nga, ang quasi-judicial body na Ombudsman eh tapos na ang proseso doon,'' Baligod said.

Nonetheless, Baligod said it is now for the Office of the Ombudsman to evaluate the weight of Napoles' testimony.

Baligod said Napoles' testimony may be used to file cases against other lawmakers, government officials and other personalities who were not
included in the first two batches of pork barrel cases.

But Baligod said doing this would raise a legal question regarding Napoles' status as a respondent in the first two batches of pork barrel cases and
even in the serious illegal detention case filed by Luy.

''I trust in the wisdom of the DOJ particularly Secretary Leila De Lima, pero kailangan po sigurong masagot iyong ibang katanungan natin,'' he said.

'Lay down new things'

Mendoza, meanwhile, said although Luy was surprised with Napoles' change of heart, the whistleblower is not totally opposed to the businesswoman
spilling the beans on the scam.

He, however, said Napoles must only become a witness - whether as an ordinary or state witness - ''as to things that have not been laid down."

''We feel that she should not contradict what has already been laid down. We feel if she has something to say, then tell us something new, or what
wasnt taken up in the Senate hearing. She was already under oath in the Senate hearing, and now she comes with a testimony. Would that be
credible?" Mendoza said.

Atty. Bruce Rivera, Napoles' legal counsel, said his client is not demanding to be turned into a state witness in exchange for her tell-all testimony.

''Ang sinasabi ni Mrs. Napoles, gusto niyang makausap si Sec. De Lima. Gusto niyang sabihin ang kanyang nalalaman. Kung tatanggapin siyang state
witness bakit hindi, pero kapag hindi naman, eh di okay lang," Rivera told dzMM.

Rivera also noted that Napoles had thought about coming forward even before she faced the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the scam.

Manila, Philippines- 'Pork barrel' scam issue sparks online outrage and flak. Janet Lim-Napoles now
centered on controversy is the alleged 'brains' behind the P10-billion scam or mis-use of Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) by some lawmakers and the P900-million Malampaya Fund issues.

Napoles and her brother, Reynald Lim now faced charges of serious illegal detention of Benhur Luy, the
so-called primary whistleblower of the scam issue.

Read: Breaking: Janet Lim Napoles surrenders to President Aquino August 28 at 9:37pm
Luy claimed he was detained by the siblings for three months in a condo unit at Bonifacio Global City in
Taguig last year.
Over the week, issue rose to peak as Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 on Wednesday issued
warrant of arrest for Napoles and her brother. Makati RTC Judge Elmo Almeda said that no bail was
recommended.
However, the businesswoman apparently tipped off and escaped the long arms of the law. Justice
Secretary Leila de Lima said that Napoles is now considered a high profile fugitive. 3 days had passed
since the planned arrest but Napoles is still not found.
On Thursday, Malacaang appealed to the public to help authorities arrest Napoles and Lim. Public was
urged to carry out a "citizen's arrest" of them. Meanwhile, De Lima said that all regional and field offices
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) have been alerted to help the 12 special teams of the
bureau for the arrest mission.
The DOJ chief admitted that tracking Napoles is a challenge to authorities, considering her resources
and connections.
Janet Napoles owns 28 houses
Fugitive Janet Napoles owns at least 28 houses in the Philippines which bring burden for tracking her
location now. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) will have to deploy more agents than usual to
find and arrest if she is hiding in one of those homes and condo units she has acquired in Metro Manila,
Laguna, Cavite, Batangas and other parts of Luzon.
Napoles Family owns 30 vehicles
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday released the list of vehicles being used by the Napoles
family. This will help authorities to arrest the alleged 'pork barrel' scam queen. At least 30 vehicles are
reflected on the list under JLN Corporation. Niko Baua of ABS-CBN reports: For those who might spot
Janet Napoles, or the vehicles in the list, call the NBI operations center, NBI HOTLINE 524-1141, 09175838612.

Napoles' attorney says


Napoles' lawyer, Lorna Kapunan said she does not know where her client is hiding.
"People may think that innocence could best be proven if Napoles faces the music. But, the media
bullying has also already shaped the public perception of Napoles".

The Pork Barrel


Pork barrel is the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily
to bring money to a representative's district. Filipino legislators are allocated large sums of the annual
national budget (200 million pesos for each senator and 70 million for each representative) in a program
called the Priority Development Assistance Fund.
When asked by Malou Mangahas of GMA News TV, Mrs. Napoles claimed that she does not know what
pork barrel is. "Unang-una, hindi ako mambabatas, so hindi ko alam kung ano yun".
The Commission on Audit (COA) confirmed on Friday that some non-government organizations (NGOs)
linked to Janet Lim Napoles received the pork barrel of lawmakers from 2007 to 2009. But, the pork
barrel worth P10 billion were channeled to bogus NGOs and ghost projects only.

Read

Priority Development Assistance Fund scam


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available
information. (February 2014)

The Priority Development Assistance Fund scam, also called the PDAF scam or the pork
barrel scam, is a political scandal involving the alleged misuse by several members of the
Congress of the Philippines of their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF, popularly
called "pork barrel"), a lump-sum discretionary fund granted to each member of Congress for
spending on priority development projects of the Philippine government, mostly on the local
level. The scam was first exposed in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 12, 2013,[1] with the
six-part expos of the Inquirer on the scam pointing to businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles as the
scam's mastermind after Benhur K. Luy, her second cousin and former personal assistant, was
rescued by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation on March 22, 2013, four months after
he was detained by Napoles at her unit at the Pacific Plaza Towers in Fort Bonifacio.[2] Initially

centering on Napoles' involvement in the 2004 Fertilizer Fund scam, the government
investigation on Luy's testimony has since expanded to cover Napoles' involvement in a wider
scam involving the misuse of PDAF funds from 2003 to 2013.
It is estimated that the Philippine government was defrauded of some 10 billion in the course of
the scam,[1] having been diverted to Napoles, participating members of Congress and other
government officials. Aside from the PDAF and the fertilizer fund maintained by the Department
of Agriculture, around 900 million in royalties earned from the Malampaya gas field were also
lost to the scam.[3] The scam has provoked public outrage, with calls being made on the Internet
for popular protests to demand the abolition of the PDAF,[4] and the order for Napoles' arrest
sparking serious discussion online.[5]

Contents
[hide]

1 Background

2 Modus operandi

3 Accused parties

4 Investigation

5 Reactions

6 Protests

7 References

Background[edit]

Two infographs on the PDAF produced by the Assembly, the Political Science Organization of the Ateneo
de Manila University.
Main article: Priority Development Assistance Fund

Although the history of pork barrel-like discretionary funds in the Philippines dates back to
1922,[6] during the American colonial period, the PDAF in its current form was only established
during the administration of Corazon Aquino with the creation of the Countryside Development
Fund (CDF) in 1990. With 2.3 billion in initial funding, the CDF was designed to allow
legislators to fund small-scale infrastructure or community projects which fell outside the scope
of the national infrastructure program, which was often restricted to large infrastructure items.
The CDF was later renamed the PDAF in 2000, during the administration of Joseph Estrada.[7]
Since 2008, every member of the House of Representatives usually receives an annual PDAF
allocation of 70 million, while every senator receives an annual allocation of 200 million.[8]
The President also benefits from a PDAF-like allocation, the President's Social Fund (PSF),
worth around 1 billion.[9] Contrary to public belief, however, PDAF allocations are not actually
released to members of Congress. Rather, disbursements under the PDAF are coursed via
implementing agencies of the Philippine government, and are limited to "soft" and "hard"
projects: the former largely referring to non-infrastructure projects (such as scholarships and
financial assistance programs, although small infrastructure projects are also considered "soft"
projects), and the latter referring to infrastructure projects which would be coursed via the
Department of Public Works and Highways.[7]
Because presidential systems are often prone to political gridlock, the PDAF is often used as a
means to generate majority legislative support for the programs of the executive.[10] Furthermore,
because PDAF allocations are released by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM),
PDAF allocations are often dependent on the relationship a legislator has with the sitting
President.[10] For example, during the latter years of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

administration, she was more generous in allocating PDAF funds in the annual national budget in
order to win the favor of legislators.[8] PDAF allocation has gradually increased over the
years.[10] For example, before Arroyo stepped down, the last PDAF allocated was for the year
2010 at 10.86 billion, but when the Benigno Aquino III administration passed its first budget
for 2011, the allocation more than doubled to 24.62 billion.[11]
The PDAF has proven to be very unpopular, with numerous calls for its abolition. In 1996, the
Philippine Daily Inquirer published an expos on systematic corruption in the CDF, with an
anonymous congressman (since identified as Romeo D. Candazo of Marikina) elaborating how
legislators and other government officials earned from overpricing projects in order to receive
large commissions. Public outrage over the misuse of the CDF was instrumental in the enactment
of reforms which led to the formation of the PDAF.[12] The constitutionality of the PDAF has
also been challenged in the Supreme Court. In 1994, the constitutionality of the CDF was
challenged by the Philippine Constitution Association, arguing that the CDF's mechanisms
encroach on the executive's power of implementing the budget passed by the legislature, but the
Court ruled the CDF constitutional under the legislative's "power of the purse".[13] This ruling
was reaffirmed in 2001, when the PDAF was challenged again in the Supreme Court.[7]
Legislators themselves are torn on the abolition of the PDAF, with some supporting total
abolition, others supporting increased regulation to minimize abuse of PDAF disbursements, and
others opposed to it.[14]

Modus operandi[edit]

A graphic representation of the PDAF scam's modus operandi produced by the Assembly.

The PDAF scam involved the funding of "ghost projects" that were funded using the PDAF
funds of participating lawmakers.[15] These projects were in turn "implemented" through
Napoles' companies, with the projects producing no tangible output. According to testimony
provided by Benhur Luy's brother, Arthur, funds would be processed through fake foundations
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) established under the wing of the JLN Group of
Companies, the holding company of Janet Lim-Napoles, with Napoles' employeeseven a
nannynamed as incorporators or directors.[16] Each foundation or NGO served as an official
recipient of a particular legislator's PDAF funds, and each organization had a number of bank
accounts where PDAF funds would be deposited for the implementation of these projects.[15]
Napoles, who specialized in trading agricultural products, frequently used the procurement of
agricultural inputs in the propagation of the scam. Either her employees would write to
legislators requesting for funds for the implementation of a particular project (e.g. farm inputs),
or a legislator would indicate to the DBM a particular recipient agency for his or her PDAF
funds that would be pre-selected by Napoles.[17] Once received, this is forwarded to the DBM,
which would then issue a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) indicating the amount
deducted from the legislator's PDAF allocation, and later a Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA)
given to the recipient agency. The NCA would then be deposited in one of the foundation's
accounts, and the funds withdrawn in favor of the JLN Group of Companies.[16] The funds would
then be split between Napoles, the lawmaker, the official of the DA responsible for facilitating
the transfer of funds and, for good measure, the local mayor or governor.[15] The JLN Group of
Companies offered a commission of 10-15% against funds released to local government units
and recipient agencies of PDAF funds, while a legislator would receive a commission of between
40-50% against the total value of his/her PDAF.[17]
Letters sent by Napoles' employees to participating legislators would also include a letter from a
local government unit requesting for funding, bearing the forged signature of the local mayor or
governor. All documents involving local government units were prepared by Napoles' staff, and
Benhur Luy would forge the signature of the local mayor or governor. Local government
officials who were used by Napoles were often unaware that they were participating in the
scam.[16] In other instances, however, Napoles would use emissaries to establish contact with
local mayors in exchange for commissions that would come from the implementation of these
projects.[15]
Every recipient agency participating in the scam had employees or officials that maintained
contact with Napoles, allowing for the smooth processing of transactions and the expedient
release of PDAF funds to her organizations. Most importantly, Napoles was in regular contact
with the DBM through Undersecretary for Operations Mario L. Relampagos,[18] who had three
employees (identified as Leah, Malou and Lalaine) responsible for the processing of SAROs
destined for Napoles' organizations.[17]

Accused parties[edit]
See also: List of implicated parties to the Priority Development Assistance Fund scam

In the initial report published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 28 members of Congress (five
senators and 23 representatives) were named as participants in the PDAF scam. Twelve of these

legislators were identified by the newspaper, and close to 3 billion in PDAF funds coming from
these legislators alone were exposed to the scam. Notably, the Inquirer named Bong Revilla,
Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Gregorio Honasan as the five
senators who participated in the scam. Revilla was the largest contributor among the 28
legislators, with around 1.015 billion of his PDAF funds being transferred to organizations
identified with the JLN Group of Companies, although the extent to which legislators
participated in the scam varied widely.[19]

Iloilo City Students protest against Pork Barrel and Education Budget Cuts
Members of the Senate & Congress identified by
the Inquirer as participants in the PDAF scam[19]
Chamber

Bong
Revilla

Senate

Lakas

1.015
billion

Juan Ponce
Enrile

Senate

PMP

641.65
million

Jinggoy
Estrada

Senate

PMP

585
million

Rizalina
House of
SeachonNPC
Representatives
Lanete

137.29
million

Ferdinand
Marcos, Jr.

Senate

Conrado

House of

Party

Amount
exposed

Legislator

Nacionalista
NPC

100
million
97

Estrella III Representatives

million

Edgar L.
House of
APEC
Valdez Representatives

85
million

Rodolfo
House of
NPC
Plaza Representatives

81.5
million

Erwin
House of
Lakas
Chiongbian Representatives

65.35
million

Samuel
House of
Lakas
Dangwa Representatives

62
million

Robert
House of
Raymund
Abono
Representatives
Estrella

41
million

Gregorio
Honasan

Independent

15
million

TOTAL

2.928
billion

Senate

Other legislators identified by the Inquirer as participating in the scam include La Union
Representative Victor Ortega and former Representative Arthur Pingoy. Early reports had also
identified Senator Loren Legarda as one of the participants in the scam,[20] but Luy later denied
her participation.[19]
Legislators identified by the Inquirer as participants in the PDAF scamBong Revilla in
particularhave denied their participation in the scam. All senators except Jinggoy Estrada
denied any knowledge of the scheme (Estrada refused to comment), and Marcos denied being
acquaintances with Janet Lim-Napoles.[21] Revilla and Marcos have also claimed that the
investigation into the scam is politically motivated, saying that Malacaang is out to discredit
potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election who are not allied with President Aquino:
a charge that the administration denies.[22] However, both Revilla and Marcos, as well as
Honasan,[21] have indicated their willingness to participate in any investigation, saying that they
have nothing to hide.[23]
On August 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit released the results of a three-year investigation
into the use of legislators' PDAF and other discretionary funds during the last three years of the
Arroyo administration. The report not only affirmed the Inquirer's findings, but also pointed to
more legislators being privy to misuse of their PDAF funds. According to the report, between
2007 and 2009, 6.156 billion in PDAF funds coming from 12 senators and 180 representatives

were disbursed to fund 772 projects found to be implemented in ways that were "not proper and
highly irregular".[24] Of the 82 NGOs implementing those projects, ten are linked to Napoles.[25]
The report also elaborates on "questionable" transactions made using the PDAF: 1.054 billion
went to NGOs which were either unregistered, used multiple Tax Identification Numbers (TIN),
or issued questionable receipts; while 1.289 billion in PDAF disbursements spent were not
compliant with the Government Procurement Reform Act of 2003. Lawmakers from across the
political spectrum, both past and present, were cited in the report, some of whom (such as
Edgardo Angara, Ruffy Biazon, Neptali Gonzales II and Niel Tupas, Jr.) are closely related to
President Aquino.[26] Some legislators also donated PDAF funds to NGOs they themselves are
affiliated with: these include Angara, Victoria Sy-Alvarado and Matias Defensor, Jr..[27]
Other government officials have been implicated as well in the PDAF scam. Agriculture
Secretary Proceso Alcala, for example, was accused by Merlina Suas, Luy's fellow
whistleblower, of being complicit in the scam, as his department was responsible for transferring
at least 16 million in PDAF funds to livelihood projects managed by an NGO linked to
Napoles.[28] 97 mayors were also implicated in the scam in connection with the allocation of
Malampaya gas field royalties as reconstruction aid for areas affected by Typhoons Ondoy and
Pepeng which instead went to Napoles, after it was discovered that employees of the JLN Group
of Companies forged their signatures to make it appear that they were requesting for aid.[29] 44
other mayors were likewise implicated in the scam when Napoles, through fashion designer
Eddie Baddeo, reportedly facilitated requests for disbursements from the Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF) on behalf of their
municipalities.[30] A number of mayors have denied involvement in the scam, including three
mayors from Bataan,[31] seven from Ilocos Norte,[32] one from Pangasinan,[33] and one from
Iloilo.[34]
A second batch of criminal charges was filed by the National Bureau of Investigation on 33
individuals, including Bureau of Customs Commissioner Rufino Biazon, who is the first political
ally and partymate of President Benigno Aquino III who has been charge in relation to the scam.
[35]

Investigation[edit]
A number of investigations are currently ongoing or will be organized to determine the extent of
the PDAF scam. On July 16, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman announced that it was forming
a special six-person panel initially to investigate the projects bankrolled by the 23 legislators
originally named in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, in parallel with the NBI investigation against
Napoles.[36] The next day, President Aquino ordered the Department of Justice to conduct and
"extensive and fair probe" of the scam,[37] which Napoles also asked for on July 27.[38] Despite
calls for the investigation to be made open to the public, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima refused,
stating at the time that it was too early for the DOJ investigation to be made public when the NBI
was still gathering data on the scam.[39]
Members of Congress have also called for parallel investigations in both the Senate and the
House of Representatives as to the extent of the scam. Despite calls by Senator Francis Escudero
to have the scam investigated,[40] the Senate initially agreed not to investigate the scam on

August 5, instead opting to wait for the results of the investigations being conducted by the DOJ,
the Ombudsman, the NBI and the Commission on Audit before launching its own
investigation.[41] However, following the release of the CoA report which implicated more
legislators in the scam, the Senate eventually agreed to conduct its own investigation, which
would be led by its Blue Ribbon Committee.[42]
The House of Representatives, meanwhile, has refused to conduct a probe, with Speaker
Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. claiming that the House investigating its own members would be
"messy", instead preferring to wait for the results of the DOJ investigation.[43] This is despite the
clamor from a number of representatives, mostly from the minority bloc not allied with President
Aquino, that the House should conduct its own investigation into the matter.[44]
Following the release of the CoA report, the DOJ is expected to expand its investigation beyond
the evidence originally provided by Luy and the other Napoles whistleblowers. It is also looking
at forming either a joint or a parallel investigation with the Ombudsman and the NBI, although
its main focus for the time being is on Napoles' involvement in the scam.[45]
Napoles surrendered to President Benigno Aquino III at 9:37 pm on August 28. The president
gave the DILG secretary Mar Roxas and PNP director Gen. Alan Purisima custody over Napoles
for booking and processing.[46]
The NBI and Justice Secretary, Leila De Lima filed the cases of plunder and malversation of
public funds against businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, senators Ramon Revilla Jr., Juan Ponce
Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and five former representatives on September 16.[47]
On November 19, The Supreme Court declared PDAF as unconstitutional.[48]

Reactions[edit]

Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Archbishop of Manila during a press conference at the University
of Santo Tomas, Cardinal Tagle described the scandal as part of an "intricate web of corruption",
and said that it is right that the issue be investigated. He added that those involved in the scam
have "lost touch with the poor" and should visit a community of informal settlers to understand
the issues poor Filipinos face on a daily basis. "We have heard many other big scandals in the
past but these were buried and forgotten when a new issue came up", the cardinal added.[49]

Renato Reyes Jr., Secretary-General of BAYAN coalition Reyes described the scandal as a
"bigger test for the Department of Justice". He also said that the coalition remains doubtful if
those involve in the alleged scam will be held liable, including those perceived to be allied with
the Aquino administration. Reyes also accused the House of Representatives and Senate for

covering up the scam and refusing to open an investigation. BAYAN also re-iterated its call for
the complete abolition of the PDAF.[50]

The Philippine Supreme Court issuing (Sept 10, 2013) a temporary restraining order (TRO)
against the release of the remaining Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) of
lawmakers for 2013 and Malampaya funds.[51]

Protests[edit]
See also: Million People March

On August 26, 2013, thousands of people came to Luneta Park in a protest against the pork
barrel scheme dubbed the "Million People March". After this, a prayer vigil dubbed "EDSA
Tayo" was set for September 11 at the EDSA Shrine. About 500-700 people attended the
vigil.[52] Two days later another protest was held at Luneta, where according to police estimates,
about 3000 entered.[53] The organizers stated that another rally dubbed "Level Up" would be
scheduled for September 21 (with a noise barrage held before the event), and another "Million
People March" protest would be held in December.[53][54]

References[edit]
1.

^ Jump up to:

ab

Carvajal, Nancy C. (July 12, 2013). "NBI probes P10-B scam". Philippine Daily Inquirer

(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 19, 2013.


2.

Jump up ^ Lawas, Hector (April 5, 2013). "NBI pressing abduction quiz". People's Journal (Philippine
Journalists, Inc.). Retrieved August 19, 2013.

3.

Jump up ^ Carvajal, Nancy C. (July 16, 2013). "Malampaya fund lost P900M in JLN racket". Philippine Daily
Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 19, 2013.

4.

Jump up ^ "From Facebook to Luneta: Anti-pork protest spills into streets August 26". GMA News and
Public Affairs. August 18, 2013. Retrieved August 19, 2013.

5.

Jump up ^ Go, Dominic Gabriel (August 15, 2013). "Napoles arrest story spikes on social media". Rappler
(Rappler, Inc.). Retrieved August 19, 2013.

6.

Jump up ^ Tort, Marvin A. (August 6, 2013). "Time to end a century of pork". BusinessWorld
(BusinessWorld Publishing Corporation). Retrieved August 20, 2013.

7.

^ Jump up to:

abc

Nograles, Prospero C.; Lagman, Edcel C., Understanding the Pork Barrel, House of

Representatives of the Philippines, archived from the original on April 17, 2012, retrieved August 20, 2013
8.

^ Jump up to:

ab

Mangahas, Malou (July 17, 2012). "PDAF racket rocks daang matuwid". Philippine

Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved August 20, 2013.


9.

Jump up ^ Rellin, Kildel (August 2, 2013). "Power of the purse: Probing the politics behind the pork
barrel". The Philippine Collegian (University of the Philippines Diliman). Retrieved August 20, 2013.

10. ^ Jump up to:

abc

Abao, Carmel V. (August 17, 2013). "Why rationalize bad practice? Abolish pork barrel".

Rappler (Rappler, Inc.). Retrieved August 19, 2013.


11. Jump up ^ [1]
12. Jump up ^ Salaverria, Leila (August 20, 2013). "Candazo, first whistle-blower on pork barrel scam, dies;
61". Philippine Daily Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
13. Jump up ^ Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. 113105, 19 August 1994, 235
SCRA 506.
14. Jump up ^ Martin, Sammy F. (July 16, 2013). "House divided on pork barrel abolition". Philippines News
Agency. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
15. ^ Jump up to:

abcd

Bediones, Paolo (July 16, 2013). "Paano nangyari ang P10B 'PDAF scam'?" (in Filipino).

Good Morning Club. TV5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TWTf0ZyVk4.


16. ^ Jump up to:

abc

Carvajal, Nancy C. (July 14, 2013). "How P10-B racket works". Philippine Daily Inquirer

(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 19, 2013.


17. ^ Jump up to:

abc

Soriano, JP (August 18, 2013). "Pinagdaanan ng pera mula sa pork barrel papunta sa

umano'y pekeng NGO's, ayon sa NBI" (in Filipino). 24 Oras. GMA Network.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo10KV-6rw0#at=51.
18. Jump up ^ "DBM Directory". Official Website of the Department of Budget and Management. Department
of Budget and Management. Retrieved August 19, 2013.
19. ^ Jump up to:

abc

Carvajal, Nancy C. (July 15, 2013). "28 solons linked to scam". Philippine Daily Inquirer

(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.


20. Jump up ^ Pulta, Benjamin B. (July 13, 2013). "Scam witness links Loren, Marcos Jr. to ghost projects
case". The Daily Tribune (The Tribune Publishing Company, Inc.). Retrieved August 22, 2013.
21. ^ Jump up to:

ab

Macaraig, Ayee (July 15, 2013). "Revilla, Marcos link pork scam to 2016". Rappler

(Rappler, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.


22. Jump up ^ Calonzo, Andreo (July 16, 2013). "Palace on Bong Revilla's 'demolition job' accusation: No time
for that". GMA News and Public Affairs. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
23. Jump up ^ Yamsuan, Cathy C. (July 16, 2013). "Revilla accuses Palace of demolition job". Philippine Daily
Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
24. Jump up ^ "'Pork' audit reveals phony solon, ghost grantees, dubious receipts, illegal firms". GMA News
and Public Affairs. August 16, 2013. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
25. Jump up ^ Labog-Javellana, Juliet (August 17, 2013). "Houses of corruption". Philippine Daily Inquirer
(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.

26. Jump up ^ Special Audit Report No. 2012-03: Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and Various
Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP), Commission on Audit, August 14, 2013, retrieved August 20,
2013
27. Jump up ^ Cabacungan Jr., Gil C. (August 18, 2013). "Fake NGO scam wider than Napoles web". Philippine
Daily Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
28. Jump up ^ Cabacungan Jr., Gil C. (July 31, 2013). "Whistle-blower links Alcala to pork scam". Philippine
Daily Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
29. Jump up ^ Carvajal, Nancy C. (August 11, 2013). "97 mayors signatures fake". Philippine Daily Inquirer
(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
30. Jump up ^ Yamsuan, Cathy C. (August 5, 2013). "Santiago sees plunder in 44 mayors letters". Philippine
Daily Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
31. Jump up ^ Supnad, Mar T. (August 8, 2013). "Ex-mayors from Bataan deny involvement in PDAF scam".
Central Luzon Daily (Central Luzon Daily, Inc.). Retrieved August 20, 2013.
32. Jump up ^ "Iba pang mayors sa Ilocos Norte umalma rin sa pineke na pirma re: pork barrel scam" (in
Filipino). Bombo Radyo Laoag. August 16, 2013. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
33. Jump up ^ Baua, Niko (August 14, 2013). "Ex-mayor appears before NBI to shed light on PDAF scam". ABSCBN News and Current Affairs. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
34. Jump up ^ Rendon, Jennifer P. (July 21, 2013). "Mayor denies part in pork barrel scam". The Freeman
(PhilStar Daily, Inc.). Retrieved August 22, 2013.
35. Jump up ^ http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/news/economy/23538-boc-s-biazon-33others-comprise-second-batch-of-pdaf-scam-respondents
36. Jump up ^ Cabacungan Jr., Gil C. (July 17, 2013). "Ombudsman forms special team to probe ghost pork
projects". Philippine Daily Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
37. Jump up ^ Avendao, Christine O. (July 19, 2013). "DOJ bolsters pork scam probe". Philippine Daily
Inquirer (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
38. Jump up ^ Padua, Reinir (July 27, 2013). "Napoles camp seeks fair probe on pork scam". The Philippine
Star (PhilStar Daily, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
39. Jump up ^ Lawas, Hector (August 5, 2013). "De Lima nixes public probe of Php10-B PDAF scam". People's
Journal (Philippine Journalists, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
40. Jump up ^ Macaraig, Ayee (August 1, 2013). "Escudero: Probe 'pork' instead of piecemeal expos".
Rappler (Rappler, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
41. Jump up ^ Macaraig, Ayee (August 5, 2013). "Unanimous decision: Senate wont probe pork for now".
Rappler (Rappler, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.

42. Jump up ^ "Why the Senate decided to probe pork scam". ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs. August 21,
2013. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
43. Jump up ^ Cabacungan Jr. Gil C. (August 12, 2013). "House wont probe pork". Philippine Daily Inquirer
(Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
44. Jump up ^ Alvarez, Kathrina; Lopez, Virgil (July 31, 2013). "Face pork scam probe, minority bloc urges
senators". Sun.Star Manila (Sun.Star Publishing, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
45. Jump up ^ Punay, Edu (August 19, 2013). "DOJ to expand pork probe; NBI-ombudsman team eyed". The
Philippine Star (PhilStar Daily, Inc.). Retrieved August 23, 2013.
46. Jump up ^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/476623/napoles-surrenders-to-aquino-sources
47. Jump up ^ http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/09/16/1217341/plunder-raps-filed-vs-napoles-3pork-senators
48. Jump up ^ http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/11/19/1258492/sc-declares-pdaf-unconstitutional
49. Jump up ^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/465001/pork-scam-moves-tagle-to-tears
50. Jump up ^ http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/08/15/1093821/bayan-doubts-doj-probe-porkbarrel-scam
51. Jump up ^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/484735/sc-stops-release-of-pork-malampaya-funds
52. Jump up ^ De Jesus, Julliane Love (11 September 2013). "EDSA Tayo rally declared a success". Philippine
Daily Inquirer. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
53. ^ Jump up to:

ab

Gagalac, Ron. "Anti-pork barrel protesters gather in Luneta [again]". ABS-CBN News.

Retrieved 14 September 2013.


54. Jump up ^ Carcamo, Dennis (18 September 2013). "Groups gear up for big anti-pork barrel rally". The
Philippine Star. Retrieved 20 September 2013.

[hide]

Scams and confidence tricks

Terminology

Confidence trick

Error account

List of confidence tricks

Notable scams and


confidence tricks

Shill

Sucker list

Conman

Advance fee fraud

Art student scam

Badger game

Bait-and-switch

Black money scam

Bogus escrow

Boiler room

Charity fraud

Clip joint

Coin rolling scams

Drop swindle

Embarrassing cheque

Employment scams

Fiddle game

Fine print

Fodder scam

Foreclosure rescue scheme

Foreign exchange fraud

Fortune telling fraud

Get-rich-quick scheme

Green goods scam

Hustling

Intellectual property scams

Kansas City Shuffle

Long firm

Miracle cars scam

Mock auction

Patent safe

Pig in a poke

Internet scams and


countermeasures

Ponzi scheme

Pork Barrel scam

Pump and dump

Pyramid scheme

Reloading scam

Shell game

Sick baby hoax

Slavery reparations scam

Spanish Prisoner

Strip search phone call scam

Swampland in Florida

Telemarketing fraud

Gem scam

Thai tailor scam

Thai zig zag scam

Three-card Monte

Trojan horse

White van speaker scam

Work-at-home scheme

Advance fee fraud

Avalanche (phishing group)

Click fraud

Computer crime

CyberThrill

DarkMarket

Domain slamming

Email authentication

Email fraud

El Gordo de la Primitiva Lottery International Promotions


Programmes

Employment scams

Internet vigilantism

Pyramid and Ponzi schemes

Lottery scam

PayPaI

Phishing

Referer spoofing

Ripoff Report

Rock Phish

Romance scam

Russian Business Network

SaferNet

Scam baiting

ShadowCrew

Spoofed URL

Spoofing attack

Stock Generation

Cramming (fraud)

Website reputation ratings

Whitemail

Aman Futures Group

Dona Branca

Caritas

Bernard Cornfeld

Foundation for New Era Philanthropy

High-yield investment program (HYIP)

Investors Overseas Service

Bernard Madoff

MMM

Make Money Fast

Petters Group Worldwide

Pyramid schemes in Albania

Reed Slatkin

Saradha Group

Scott W. Rothstein

Confidence tricks in the media

Stanford Financial Group

Literature

Fictional con artists

Film and television

See also: List of con artists

List of confidence tricks

List of Ponzi schemes

<img src="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1" alt="" title="" width="1"


height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />
Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Priority_Development_Assistance_Fund_scam&oldid=6077
52137"
Categories:

2013 in the Philippines

Political scandals in the Philippines

Corruption in the Philippines

Hidden categories:

Wikipedia articles in need of updating from February 2014

All Wikipedia articles in need of updating

Navigation menu
Personal tools

Create account
Log in

Namespaces

Article
Talk

Variants

Views

Read
Edit
View history

Actions
Search
Special:Search

Go

Navigation

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools

What links here


Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Data item
Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Tagalog

Edit links

This page was last modified on 9 May 2014 at 09:25.


Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view