Featured Post

June 25, 2018 - Unjust Judges

June 25, 2018 - Unjust Judges Monday of the Twelfth Week in Ordinary Time Father Edward McIlmail, LC   Matthew 7:1-5 Jesus sa...

Monday, June 25, 2018

Aquino, Del Rosario and media hid the loss of Panatag to China from the nation

Third of a 4-part series
IT’S a cliché for sure, but I can’t help using it in disgust over the episode: “Only in the Philippines.” Indeed, where else could a nation’s loss of its territory be hidden for so long by its President, with the help of a media that claims to be independent?

The inept Aquino government on June 3, 2012 gave up Panatag Shoal (Bajo de Masinloc or Scarborough Shoal) to the Chinese, yet managed to keep it under wraps, so that the truth came out only in trickles over several years. So much so that many Filipinos, even knowledgeable ones, are unaware of that enormous loss, and how it happened, to this day.
This chapter is also an indictment of how media, especially the most powerful newspaper at that time, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, betrayed the nation by wittingly or unwittingly hiding that loss of Philippine territory which was the result of President Aquino 3rd and his foreign secretary Alberto del Rosario’s bungling.
Chinese and Philippine government vessels had been on a stand-off for seven weeks in May and April 2012 in Panatag Shoal, with each party’s vessels refusing to move. On June 3 though, del Rosario without Aquino’s permission, ordered our three ships to leave the area. The Chinese never left the shoal; that’s how we lost Panatag – forever as it were.

Del Rosario, a corporate executive-turned-foreign-affairs-secretary, obviously didn’t do his homework on this most crucial foreign-affairs issue. In 1975, the Vietnamese had fooled our troops who had been holding Southwest Cay (also in the Spratlys) since 1968, to leave for a party in a nearby island that Vietnam occupied. They returned the next morning to find that the Vietnamese had occupied their island, barring them from landing on it. The Vietnamese of course never left it and even built fortifications on it.
But in that case, it was low-ranking soldiers probably bored out of their wits in a so faraway island, who were fooled and lost our territory; in this case it was our foreign secretary.
Left June 3
The spokesman of China’s foreign ministry Li Weimin issued a statement on Sunday, June 4, 2012 : “The remaining Philippine vessel finally left the lagoon on June 3.” The spokesman even arrogantly warned the Philippines: “China does not hope to see any more provocative behavior that hurts China’s interest,” referring to what it called “Huangyan incident” when starting “April 10, Philippine warships* harassed Chinese fishermen.”

It was Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th who disclosed that del Rosario had ordered the Philippine vessels to leave. Either del Rosario was so gullible that he believed then US Ambassador Harry Thomas’ communication to him that the US got China to agree to a simultaneous withdrawal of both countries’ ships. Or, as Trillanes alleged, del Rosario simply wanted the rift between China and the Philippines to worsen. The senator explained that he was still working out with the Chinese details of the simultaneous withdrawal when he was told, to his shock, that the Filipino vessels had already left.

Del Rosario would later claim that the Chinese reneged on its agreement for a simultaneous withdrawal, although even the US has not confirmed that China had agreed to withdraw. He kept on referring to a stand-off over Panatag, never saying that the Chinese control it after our vessels were ordered out.
Banner story
The Philippine Daily Inquirer had a banner story on June 16, two weeks after China took control of the shoal after del Rosario ordered our vessels out: “PH ships leave Panatag.” The banner story’s drophead read: “ ‘Butchoy’ forces end to stand-off with China,” referring to a typhoon with international code name “Guchol.”

The article quoted del Rosario: “Citing bad weather, President Aquino has ordered home two Philippine ships engaged in a standoff with China over Scarborough Shoal.”

TOTAL LIES: Our ships left two weeks later, ordered by del Rosario. China never pulled out its ships.
That was a total fabrication. Typhoon “Butchoy” never even entered the Philippine mainland, and moved on the opposite side of Luzon. And even if it had battered Panatag, its lagoon had been for centuries a refuge for even small fishing vessels to shield themselves from the roughest seas. It was a lie disseminated by almost all print and broadcast media on June 16:
GMA News Online: ”Aquino orders pullout of PHL ships from Panatag Shoal due to bad weather”;
Rappler.com: “PH pulls out ships from Scarborough due to bad weather”;
Philstar: “President Aquino ordered two Philippine ships to pull out of Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal due to bad weather Friday night.”
ABS-CBN News’ report though was a bigger fabrication: “China pulls out boats from Scarborough.” The lede paragraph read: “Following a similar move by the Philippines, China pulled out its fishing boats from Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal last Sunday due to ‘inclement’ weather.” Chinese vessels of course had remained in the shoal in the lagoon, and leaving only when replacements arrive.
The much bigger smokescreen that Aquino and del Rosario employed to conceal their culpability for the loss of Panatag was the case it filed against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration for violating the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Even as the PCA’s “award” cannot be enforced – and didn’t rule on who owns Panatag as well as other disputed areas in the Spratlys – the case had portrayed Aquino and del Rosario as boldly fighting for Philippine territory, thus concealing that they lost Philippine territory because of their ineptness.
Trillanes disclosure
To be honest, I myself for two years had been fooled that we hadn’t lost Panatag and that we were still struggling with China over it, although I had written a column during the stand-off explaining that it was Aquino who triggered the crisis when he sent our biggest warship in the area (“Scarborough fail: How Aquino blew it,” May 4, 2012),

It is ironic that it was in an interview in November 2014 with Trillanes, in which he alleged del Rosario’s culpability for the loss which he claimed was deliberate, that I realized that our government stupidly lost Panatag to the Chinese.
To this day, it has been only specialized articles on the South China Sea by foreigners that we are told unequivocally that the Aquino administration lost Panatag in 2012. A recent one was an article in a book (Examining the South China Sea Disputes: Papers from the Fifth Annual CSIS South China Sea Conference) which narrated:
“In the Scarborough Shoal incident of 2012, China’s Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC) prevented the arrest of Chinese fishers by a Philippine coast guard cutter … The FLEC ships moved between the Philippine cutter and the fishing ships, beginning a standoff that ended when Manila withdrew its cutter and other vessels, and China occupied Scarborough Shoal.”
A report of the Center for Naval Analyses, a think-tank for the US military, explained the implications of such occupation:
“China resolved the sovereignty dispute with the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal in 2012 when it established control over the shoal. Again, it is unlikely to relinquish it. The government of the Philippines is in no position to even begin to contemplate the use of force to recover Scarborough, and the United States is not going to become involved in any attempt to expel the Chinese.”
On Wednesday: Aquino and del Rosario begged US to intervene in the Panatag stand-off, and were rudely rebuffed.
Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives: rigoberto.tiglao@gmail.com


Aquino, Trillanes blamed Del Rosario for Panatag loss

Second of a 4-part series
BOTH President Benigno Aquino 3rd and Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th blamed then Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto del Rosario for the country’s losing Panatag (Scarborough or Bajo de Masinloc) Shoal in 2012 to China.

Yet del Rosario has to gall to call President Duterte’s Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana a propaganda tool of China for saying in an interview that Aquino mismanaged the sea dispute.
The truth is that if there is anybody who is a propaganda tool, it is the US-educated del Rosario, who by his actions and statements, especially since he was our ambassador to the US, has indisputably proven to be the very reliable mouthpiece of the US’ deep state. This has been crucial for the US since, as it does not have any claim in the disputed seas, it desperately required proxies in the area, roles which Aquino and del Rosario very ably assumed.
It was the reckless deployment by Aquino, del Rosario’s boss, of our biggest warship, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, to Panatag Shoal on April 12, 2012 that triggered a stand-off between Chinese and Philippine vessels that lasted for six weeks. According to Aquino and Trillanes, it was del Rosario’s order directing our vessels to withdraw from the area that effectively handed over the shoal to China.
Aquino had blustered that the frigate would defend against the Chinese Maritime Surveillance (CMS) the vessels of our Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and Coast Guard which had arrested a number of Chinese fishermen for “illegal fishing” in the shoal. Aquino, told of his mistake, immediately ordered the frigate to leave the area. It was a boo-boo that couldn’t be “deleted,” and China exploited it to claim that the Philippines militarized the disputed shoal.

Trillanes with Aquino (left); Del Rosario (right) in a photo from the 2017 annual report of Hong Kong-based First Pacific, of which he is a director. Controlled by an Indonesian, some 30 percent of First Pacific’s shares are held by US investors.
Rather than sending its own warships though, China deployed several CMS vessels to escort more than 90 Chinese fishing boats to the shoal in, ironically for us, a seaborne “People Power”-of-sorts tactic against our ships. For seven weeks, there was a standoff, with both Chinese and Philippine vessels refusing to leave the area.
Colossal mistake
However, on June 3, del Rosario ordered our BFAR and Coast Guard vessels to leave the shoal. This was a colossal mistake as it left the Chinese in complete control of the shoal, and they have never left the area. That’s how we completely lost Panatag, the first territory ever that we have lost.

Among the many similar accounts on the Philippine blunder is a November 2014 report of the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA)—a think-tank for the US military—that concluded:
“China resolved the sovereignty dispute with the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal in 2012 when it established control over the shoal. Again, it is unlikely to relinquish it. The government of the Philippines is in no position to even begin to contemplate the use of force to recover Scarborough, and the United States is not going to become involved in any attempt to expel the Chinese.”
Both in an interview with Trillanes with me in 2015, and in his aide memoire “Backchannel Talks” that he gave me, the senator claimed it was del Rosario who was responsible for the boo-boo, with Aquino himself blaming his foreign secretary. He was so angry at del Rosario that in my talk with him and with a television network, he said what del Rosario did was treason.
“PNoy called me to inform me that our two BFAR vessels already left the shoal but China reneged on the agreement of simultaneous withdrawal of their ships, so two of them [were]still inside the shoal,” Trillanes wrote in his aide memoire.
“I asked him who agreed with what, since I was just hammering out the details of the sequential withdrawal because the mouth of the shoal was too narrow for a simultaneous withdrawal. The President told me that Secretary del Rosario told him about the agreement reached in Washington,” Trillanes wrote.
Trillanes continued: “This time I asked PNoy, ‘If the agreement was simultaneous withdrawal, why did we leave first?’ PNoy responded to this effect: “Kaya nga sinabihan ko si Albert kung bakit niya pinalabas yung BFAR na hindi ko nalalaman.” (“That’s why I asked Albert [del Rosario]why he ordered the BFAR vessels to leave without my permission.”)
Fu Ying meet
According to my government and diplomatic sources as well as to the report of Ellen Tordesillas, who was the most knowledgeable diplomatic reporter at the time, what transpired was as follows:

Fu Ying, vice minister of Foreign Affairs in charge of Asia (who had been ambassador here from 1998 to 2000) met on June 1 with Kurt Campbell, the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in Washington, to discuss Aquino and del Rosario’s request for the Americans to intervene—even militarily, my sources claimed—in the crisis. Campbell relayed President Obama’s position that the US cannot intervene in the dispute, and instead suggested a simultaneous withdrawal of vessels from Panatag Shoal to de-escalate the tension.
The Chinese official told Campbell that she would relay the suggestion to her superiors in Beijing. However, for some unexplained reason, then US Ambassador to Manila Harry Thomas told del Rosario that China had already agreed to a simultaneous withdrawal.
The gullible del Rosario immediately ordered, in the middle of the night, the BFAR and Coast Guard vessels to pull out, leaving the Chinese in complete control of the shoal. Aquino would only find out about the pull-out when he woke up—a bit late—the following morning.
That this was what happened is bolstered by a DFA statement released in July 2012 to explain why the Philippines failed to convince the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) to condemn China’s takeover of the shoal:
“On the reference to ‘duplicity and intimidation,’ the Philippines forged an agreement with China for the simultaneous pullout of all vessels inside the shoal, which we undertook in good faith on June 4. Furthermore, China agreed to remove its barrier at the entrance of the shoal.
“Yet to this day, China has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has maintained its ships inside and outside the shoal, as well as its barrier, in its aim to establish effective control and jurisdiction in the shoal and surrounding waters.”
Neither US nor China
Neither the US nor China, of course, have confirmed that there was such an agreement. If there was, and it was the US that mediated the pact, wouldn’t it have condemned China for violating it?

Among the questions raised by this account:
1. Did Campbell really tell their Ambassador Thomas, to tell del Rosario that the Chinese had agreed to withdraw from the shoal? Or did Thomas misinterpret his superior’s communication? Or worse, did the 73-year-old del Rosario hear what he wanted to hear, as the standoff had lasted for seven weeks, and he was crumbling under the tension?

2. Or, as Trillanes alleged, was del Rosario’s real intention was to worsen the rift between China and the Philippines, which he claimed was the agenda of the foreign secretary’s business boss, Manuel V. Pangilinan, so the US itself would eventually protect one of his firm’s oil-drilling projects in the Reed Bank, also claimed by China?
3. How could del Rosario go over the head of Aquino that he could order the BFAR and Coast Guard ships to leave Panatag?
Del Rosario should give his side on these questions in the planned Senate investigation on our territorial dispute with China.
Or he could ask the Philippine Star, which his boss Pangilinan (whose boss in turn is the Indonesian tycoon Anthoni Salim) controls, to devote a whole page to explain his side on how we lost Panatag.
On Wednesday: How Aquino and the Yellow Media hid the loss of Panatag from the nation
Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives: rigobertotiglao.com


June 25, 2018 - Unjust Judges

June 25, 2018 - Unjust Judges

Monday of the Twelfth Week in Ordinary Time
Father Edward McIlmail, LC
Matthew 7:1-5

Jesus said to his disciples: "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

Introductory Prayer: I believe in the power of prayer, Lord. This time spent with you is the most important time of my day. Let me be confident of your presence and your love, in order to take full advantage of these privileged moments.

Petition: Lord, help me to rid myself of judgmental attitudes.

1. Judge Not: Judging others is sometimes our favorite pastime. It is so easy to pick out the faults of others -- to see their defects. It can make us feel superior. Yet, focusing on the faults of others can often distract us from our own failings. We tend to see in others the very faults of which we ourselves are guilty. That is why a husband who spends endless hours on Internet might complain about the amount of time his wife spends at the shopping mall. What do I complain about the most? Could I be guilty of the same fault?

2. Silence Out of Human Respect: Our Lord doesn't dissuade us from trying to help others to improve. In fact, fraternal correction can be a form of charity if -- big if -- done charitably (see Matthew 18:15). Indeed, instructing the uninformed is a spiritual work of mercy. Unfortunately, for the sake of being "cool," we often keep quiet as others wallow in sin. Christ isn't inviting us to be indifferent in the face of a loved one's faults. The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference. Am I afraid to guide those whom the Lord has entrusted to my care? Do I remain quiet in order to "keep the peace"? On Judgment Day we will have to answer for our sins of omission (see Luke 19:20-24).

3. Eliminating Our Mediocrity: We are all called to holiness. Life is but a brief opportunity to grow in holiness before we step into eternity. What we do here dictates the state of our eternal reward or punishment. That is why we have to be on guard against growing accustomed to our faults. God doesn't want us to be mediocre. He wants us to struggle against our weaknesses. Am I actively trying to get rid of a vice? The best way to drive out a bad habit is to form a good habit. Am I eating too much? Then form the habit of smaller desserts. Am I short-tempered with my spouse? Then do a special act of charity for him or her each day.

Conversation with Christ: Life is short, Lord, and I need to grasp the importance of each day as an opportunity to grow in holiness. Let me put more effort into criticizing myself rather than others. Help me to see truthfully where my worst faults lie.

Resolution: I will say something nice to the last person I criticized or spoke badly about.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

CHR NAG-INGAY UKOL SA NAMATAY NA TAMBAY 'Inatake sa puso sisi pa rin kay DUTERTE' - Dante Maravillas


June 24, 2018 - What's in a Name?

June 24, 2018 What's in a Name?

Solemnity of the Nativity of John the Baptist
Father Edward McIlmail, LC

Luke 1:57-66, 80

When the time arrived for Elizabeth to have her child she gave birth to a son. Her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown his great mercy toward her, and they rejoiced with her. When they came on the eighth day to circumcise the child, they were going to call him Zechariah after his father, but his mother said in reply, "No. He will be called John." But they answered her, "There is no one among your relatives who has this name." So, they made signs, asking his father what he wished him to be called. He asked for a tablet and wrote, "John is his name," and all were amazed. Immediately his mouth was opened, his tongue freed, and he spoke blessing God. Then fear came upon all their neighbors, and all these matters were discussed throughout the hill country of Judea. All who heard these things took them to heart, saying, "What, then, will this child be?" For surely the hand of the Lord was with him. The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the desert until the day of his manifestation to Israel.

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I make this effort at prayer for the sake of my soul and the souls of my loved ones. I believe that you died for us and want us to be with you forever in heaven.

Petition: Grant me new respect, Lord, for parents.

1. Bundle of Joy: The arrival of a new baby has been a source of joy throughout the ages. Babies are God's way of saying the world should go on. Each new child reflects a facet of the infinite beauty and mystery of God. And by teaching us patience and selflessness, the little ones help us grow in holiness. In their childlike simplicity they teach us to remain simple. Their neediness can, and should, soften our hearts. They don't even have to be our own children; we can feel an obligation to help all kids, since their lives enrich all of us. What have I done lately to help the little ones, born and unborn? Is there a crisis-pregnancy center that could use help? Have I spoken well of parents who are open to large families?

2. God's Choice: For the ancient Jews a name captured, even defined, a person's identity. So, for Elizabeth to name her son "John" was significant. It showed her recognition of God's great plan for the child. John was in the Almighty's special care from the start. Even today, each and every child is loved by God and has a destiny in the heavenly Father's plan. Each has a vocation, a calling, in the Church. Do I appreciate the role that little ones have in God's plans? Do I respect their dignity? Or do I try to impose my prejudices on them? They are tomorrow's adults. How will I want them to remember my example?

3. Loosened Lips: Zechariah had doubted God and was struck mute. He regains his speech only after publicly accepting God's plan and allowing his newborn son to take the name John. We, too, might have a bit of Zechariah in us. We resist God, only to hit a dead end. Bad friendships, habits of serious sin, rising despair – all of these can eat away at us. Yet, repentance is slow to come. Why? "We think that evil is basically good," said Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI (December 8, 2005). "We think that we need it, at least a little, in order to experience the fullness of being. … If we look, however, at the world that surrounds us we can see that this is not so; in other words, that evil is always poisonous, does not uplift human beings, but degrades and humiliates them." Am I resisting God's plans?

Conversation with Christ: Lord, you have put family members and other loved ones in my life for a reason. I'm to help them get to heaven, and they are to help me do the same. Remind me of this truth and help me in a special way not to interfere with the plans you have for the children in my life.

Resolution: I will pray a decade of the rosary that all my family members reach heaven.

Sereno got to be Chief Justice because of Aquino’s DAP

IT is poetic justice that the day after the Supreme Court ruled “with finality” that Maria Lourdes Sereno was a fake chief justice and booted her out, the Ombudsman announced its decision to indict her patron and boss, former President Benigno Aquino 3rd, for his
colossal fund scam, camouflaged as the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).
Without the DAP, Sereno wouldn’t have been a chief justice in a million years. Some P6.5 billion from the DAP was used to bribe Congress to remove then Chief Justice Renato Corona, to be replaced by Sereno.
Aquino’s DAP scheme was so illegally brazen and so huge in scale that only an Aquino, prodded by the schemer par excellence and brain trust, his budget secretary Florencio Abad, had the gall to pull it off. It was an unprecedented assault on our republican system, one pillar of which is he principle that Congress determines the use of taxpayers’ money rather than the President. Through the DAP, Aquino was in effect a dictator who used taxpayers’ money at his whim.
Aquino and Abad imperiously declared as “savings” funds of agencies the Congress had allocated to them, and put these all into a contrived DAP fund that was purportedly to be disbursed in order to stimulate the economy. The World Bank, however, belied that DAP stimulated the economy, pointing out that the DAP meant only “mere realignment of funds” and that the DAP amounts were “minuscule, at less than 0.01 percentage points, relative to the size of the economy.”
Much of the P72 billion in total DAP funds was disbursed – at Aquino’s total discretion – for such purposes as the P2 billion used to build infrastructure at his overbuilt home province of Tarlac and the P10 billion to bribe Muslim leaders to acquiesce to his Bangsamoro bill project.

The PDI’s out-of-character banner story, February 24, 2014.
Recipients of the DAP’ s largesse were also for projects in the home provinces and agencies of Aquino’s main minions, among them Sen. Franklin Drilon, P100 million for “Relocation sites for informal settlers along Iloilo River and its tributaries;” Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, P4.5 billion in LGU support fund; and even peace negotiations adviser Teresita Deles, P1.8 billion for “peace activities.”
Main intent
These DAP uses though served to hide its main intent, for which it was originally conceived: to remove Corona, not only because Aquino detested that he was appointed by Gloria Arroyo, but also because he wouldn’t acquiesce to his clan’s wish that the Supreme Court award it P10 billion in compensation for putting Hacienda Luisita under land reform.

Aquino’s pork-barrel funds were not enough for such an extraordinary assault on the Supreme Court, that he needed bigger money to undertake it.
The DAP provided the P6.5 billion to bribe – in the pork-barrel style of infrastructure funds directed by the lawmakers – first the House of Representatives, led by then Speaker Feliciano Belmonte and justice committee chairman Niel Tupas, Jr., to pass, hardly with debate, the impeachment complaint against Corona. And then it was used to bribe the Senate as the impeachment court to vote Corona guilty.
The Aquino-controlled media had shamelessly undertaken one of the biggest hatchet jobs in media history against a person of the highest integrity. The website Rappler – hurriedly set up in time for the persecution of Corona – and the Philippine Daily Inquirer bannered a claim that he cheated to get his Ph.D. from the UST (totally debunked). They alleged that he had 45 properties (he only had four). They even dragged his daughter into the mud, falsely alleging that she bought for her father a property in Los Angeles – although it turned out she was a physical therapist working 14-hour days to raise the down payment that got her the house at dirt cheap prices during the US real estate crisis.
While these media lies fooled the gullible portion of our middle class that Corona wasn’t fit to be Chief Justice, our more street-smart legislators of course needed more than propaganda for them to remove the Chief Justice. It was the P6.5 billion from the DAP that convinced them.
I have written 20 columns to expose one of Aquino’s biggest crimes that was the DAP, and even provided images there of secret government documents involving its use. Just to point out that there were others who exposed this crime, I’m reproducing here excerpts from a February 24, 2014 article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, reported by Gil Cabacungan, an extraordinary one because of the paper’s unabashed bias for Aquino:
Inquirer article
“The Aquino administration used P6.5 billion from the little-known Disbursement Acceleration Program before, during and after the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona to bend Congress to its will, two members of the House of Representatives told the Inquirer.

“The sources estimated that the House got as much as P5 billion in DAP funds, while the senators received the remaining P1.5 billion, as admitted by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) itself.
“The sources, who did not wish to be identified because of the confidential information involved, said the DBM released to the representatives at least P10 million each from the DAP, supposedly a novel scheme to stimulate the economy.
“The funds released to congressmen from the DAP, whose constitutionality has been questioned in the Supreme Court, were on top of the P70 million in annual allocations from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or pork barrel.
“The sources said that the House leadership and its impeachment team were rewarded between P25 million and P50 million in DAP funds after Corona was convicted in May 2012, or seven months after Budget Secretary Florencio Abad announced the P70.5-billion spending plan for the DAP, including a P6.5 billion augmentation for the PDAF.
“They said they were asked by the DBM to give their preferred LGUs and beneficiaries for their DAP allocations.
“Asked for comment, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte said: ‘I cannot remember the incident. Haven’t heard of DAP back then. We will check.’
“In a statement, Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiangco said: ‘Based on reports and by its own admission, the DBM used the DAP before, during and after the Corona impeachment trial between 2011 and 2012.’
“Tiangco said the DAP was ‘used as an excuse to cover the P50-million bribe to senators and P10 million given to congressmen for the conviction’ of Corona.”
(My series on the South China territorial dispute resume Monday.)
Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives at: www.rigobertotiglao.com