By Camille A. Aguinaldo

THE SPECIAL Assistant of President Rodrigo R. Duterte on Monday asserted innocence in the controversial P15.5-billion frigate acquisition project of the Philippine Navy, saying he was being linked to the controversy as an attempt to destroy the Navy’s project and the current administration.

“I am innocent. I was dragged into the issue in order to destroy the administration of President Duterte,” Special Assistant to the President Christopher Lawrence “Bong” T. Go told The Senate committee on national defense during its inquiry into the frigate project.

Mr. Go also said the controversy “is seriously derailing the implementation” of the frigate deal, as he noted the Navy’s urgent need to acquire the warships in order to guard the country’s waters.

“Perhaps, this is really their intention: to block the implementation of this important security program and ensure that this administration will fail,” said Mr. Go, who was accompanied at the hearing by leading members of Mr. Duterte’s Cabinet.

Mr. Go was reported to have intervened in the project when he handed out a white paper to Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana endorsing a supplier which would provide the Combat Management System (CMS) for the two frigates.

At the hearing, Mr. Go pointed out that no one intervened in the contract between the government and the frigate manufacturer Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), noting that the program was “concluded during the Aquino administration.”

“Nothing changed, nothing was changed and nobody intervened in the contract… the contract could be called photo finish because this was done before the Aquino administration ends,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English.

“What we are discussing here only became an issue when Rappler(.com) and the (Philippine Daily) Inquirer came out with fake news and claimed that I interfered in this issue,” Mr. Go also said in a statement read to the senators, adding that, “(t)his is irresponsible reporting, and I would like to sincerely request the Senate to continue with the hearing and the investigation on fake news and to summon Rappler and Inquirer to the next hearing to shed light on what they reported.”

He added that Mr. Duterte had ordered that any requests in his name or those of the President’s relatives be denied.

For his part, former Defense Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin confirmed that acquisition of the frigates began with the previous administration. But he also noted, “I did not issue any approval for awarding of the projects and other subsequent steps during the transition period…to give the next administration the opportunity to issue or not the necessary approval,” he said.

Senators also quizzed Cabinet officials regarding a Palace meeting with Navy officials in January last year on the CMS selection.

Among the documents that opposition Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV presented at the hearing was a letter dated Jan. 18, 2017, from the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), which Mr. Go heads, and signed by Undersecretary Lloyd Christopher A. Lao, requesting a meeting with Navy officials on the matter.

Mr. Lao said the meeting was prompted by a complaint by a “group of Koreans” he could no longer identify. He maintained that what they did was standard procedure by the PMS on complaints. “We always make sure complaints are acted upon,” he said.

Commodore Sean Anthony Villa, former project management team leader in the frigate project who also attended the Jan. 18, 2017, meeting, said that meeting only tackled comparisons between the two CMS suppliers.

Mr. Go said of that meeting, “Only Usec. Lao referred. I did not know anything about this.”

Mr. Trillanes questioned the meeting pointing out the coincidence that HHI selected the other CMS supplier, South Korean company Hanwha Systems, over the Dutch Tacticos Systems which the Philippine Navy favored.

“There is too much coincidence on why didn’t they follow the end user(referring to the Philippine Navy),” he told reporters.

Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II, committee chairperson, said he sees “no major evidence that (Mr. Go) intervened with the information that we have. We don’t want to make premature sweeping conclusions,” he told reporters.

He said the committee has yet to decide if it needs to hold another hearing on the matter.

By Minde Nyl R. dela Cruz

THE BUREAU of Internal Revenue (BIR) on Monday, Feb. 19, said it found discrepancies in the tax declarations of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

During the 16^th deliberation on the impeachment case against the Chief Justice, BIR Deputy Commissioner Arnel G. Guballa said his team is currently conducting an investigation on the tax declarations but opted to not release the information yet pending the approval of President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

To recall, the House of Representatives’ committee on justice on Feb. 7 directed Mr. Guballa to form a special team to check Ms. Sereno’s tax declarations for possible liabilities in relation to her failure to submit 17 years of statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs).

“The BIR now collated the records in our database pertaining to the tax records of the Chief Justice. We have made some observations, findings on the declarations of the Chief Justice, but as of the moment, we are still waiting for the approval of the Office of the President wherein we are barred by Section 270 of the tax code,” Mr. Guballa said.

He added: “As of now, we have made some observations regarding the declaration and there are some discrepancies but we cannot yet…divulge the exact figures because of the prohibition under Section 270.”

Section 270 of the Tax Code of the Philippines penalizes officers of the BIR for unlawful disclosure of sensitive information about taxpayers.

The deputy commissioner added that he is keen to observe due process, noted that he is not intentionally withholding information for the purpose of obstructing the committee proceedings.

The House panel, chaired by Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo V. Umali, then issued a subpoena for the BIR to divulge the information being requested.

Deputy Minority Leader and ABS party-list Representative Eugene Michael B. de Vera, instead, asked Mr. Guballa the details of the internal tax revenues (ITR) which BIR earlier submitted to the committee, particularly with the ones with withholding tax from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

One point of inquiry is the earnings of Ms. Sereno from the OSG for serving as the government’s counsel in the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (PIATCO) case.

Lawyer Lorenzo G. Gadon, who filed the impeachment complaint against Ms. Sereno, claimed that she did not properly pay her taxes for the P37 million she earned from the PIATCO case. Ms. Sereno, on the other hand, said she only received P30 million in tranches instead.

A lawyer and spokesperson of Ms. Sereno, Jojo Lacanilao, said it is too early to say that there were discrepancies.

He pointed that Ms. Sereno should be able to respond first before her accusers come up with a conclusion.

Mr. Lacanilao added that the issue of Ms. Sereno’s taxes is a “nonstarter” and assured that the Chief Justice paid all her taxes.

DE LIMA CASE
Meanwhile, the House panel slammed Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jenny Lind Aldecoa-Delorino and Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Presiding Judges Amelia Fabros-Corpuz (Branch 205) and Patria Manalastas-De Leon (Branch 206) for their incompatible statements.

The House panel, which was tackling Ms. Sereno’s alleged intervention in the issuance of the arrest warrant on Senator Leila B. de Lima, questioned the three court officials if they were ordered by a higher official to delay the warrant.

Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204, who was not able to attend as she was on leave, was the first one to issue the warrant three days after a case against Ms. De Lima was filed on Feb. 17, 2017.

However, Judge Corpuz did not issue the warrant until four months later in June, explaining there were other pending motions that she had to read through first.

On the other hand, Judge De Leon deferred issuing the warrant until nine months later in November as she had to await the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue of the jurisdiction of the case.

The DCA and the presiding judges reiterated not receiving such orders but Ms. Delorino admitted that she did call Judges Corpuz and De Leon in relation to assistance they may need in hearing the cases.

Asked if it was in her mandate to do so, Ms. Delorino said it was the “standard operating procedure” of her office. However, Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said that “it may be a standard operating procedure for DCA Delorino because she has been a judge, she has been an assistant court administrator and now a deputy court administrator so she must have her own discretion or ways on how to address certain situation.”

“Personally I refrain from calling any judges especially…where there are high profile cases raffled to them solely for the purpose that I may be misunderstood. But I do not prevent or disallow my deputy court administrators to do what they think should be done or what they believe should be proper in certain circumstances, more so or especially so when they have different areas that are assigned to them,” Mr. Marquez added.

Ms. Delorino, in turn, responded that it was wrong to use the term “standard operating procedure” but said that she sees to it to attend to the needs of the lower courts should they need additional staff and inform them of the guidelines on how to handle media who cover the trials.

“It is my own way of assisting the trial courts… that is how I assist the judges in the trial courts. If they have special needs, then we try to address them as quickly as possible,” Ms. Delorino said.

The DCA also told the committee that she “gave instructions” to the three presiding judges “not to inhibit unless there are really reasons to disqualify themselves.”

Quezon City Representative Vicent P. Crisologo noted that asking the judges to not inhibit from the case amounts to intervening in the case.

Ms. Delorino recanted her previous statement and said that she only “want(ed) to make sure that they will not inhibit because if they will inhibit, then we would have to find other judges to handle the cases.”

SAGIP party-list Representative Rodante D. Marcoleta also repeatedly asked Ms. Delorino about her claims that she always called RTC judges to check if they need assistance but Mr. Marcoleta noted that Ms. Delorino could not provide the names of other judges whom she called apart from Judges Corpuz and De Leon to establish that this is a recurring practice.

Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn F. Garcia said: “Facts vs conflicting testimonies: Facts, a high court official, Supreme Court official, did call — admitted. There were only two judges who were called who subsequently issued the warrants of arrest four months and nine months later. The one judge who was not called issued the warrant of arrest three days after the filing, the cases being filed on the same day. So that, for me, should speak more than the conflicting testimonies.”

Supreme Court Associate Justices Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, who were invited to talk about the controversial hiring of IT consultant Helen P. Macasaet, were not able to attend the Monday hearing.

Reading from the joint letter that the two justices sent the committee, Mr. Umali cited that “they could not attend and because they have no personal knowledge about the hiring of Helen Macasaet. They only became vice chairs of the committee on computerization and library in July 2014, way after Ms. Macasaet was already hired.”

Mr. Umali mentioned that the committee will have one more hearing before concluding the impeachment proceedings which began October last year.

Complainant Mr. Gadon accused Ms. Sereno of committing culpable violation of the constitution, corruption, betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes.

The committee on justice scheduled its next hearing for Feb. 27.

WITH 20 affirmative votes, the Senate on Monday approved on third and final reading a bill which would allow consumers to keep their mobile numbers for life, even if they change service providers or subscription plans.

Senate Bill No. 1636, or the “The Lifetime Cellphone Number Act” if passed, would require telecommunications entities to provide consumers with a “mobile number portability (MNP)” that enables an existing mobile number to be retained even if the consumer transfers to another network or changes from postpaid to prepaid or vice-versa.

“The bill would give consumers the freedom to choose the provider that would give the best value for their money without having to lose or change their mobile numbers,” said Senator Sherwin T. Gatchalian, sponsor and author of the bill, deemed a priority measure.

The proposed measure would also penalize telecommunications networks with fines of up to P1 million or with total revocation of operating franchises if they failed to deliver the benefits of mobile number portability to a mobile subscriber within “24 hours from the time such subscriber completed his or her porting application.”

The entities are also required to provide consumers with information on how to avail themselves of the MNP, such as application requirements and the porting process.

The bill would also remove the added fee imposed by mobile networks for calls and messages across different networks.

Mr. Gatchalian said cellphone numbers should become an extension of the consumer’s digital identity, “so that consumer loyalty will not be determined by the fear of losing their numbers but through the dynamism of competition among players.”

The proposed measure also noted that the nationwide MNP system would promote competition among telecommunications entities and urge them to provide consumers with better quality services.

“It will also foster technological innovation that will lead to an even greater demand for telecommunications products and services, and lead to a virtuous cycle of economic growth,” the bill stated. — Camille A. Aguinaldo