Resign

One detail jumped at me during yesterday’s Senate hearing on Comelec chair Andy Bautista and related money-laundering issues.

A representative of the NBI narrated the agency’s preliminary findings on the case of Bautista and his deposits. Almost casually, she mentions that companies sequestered by the PCGG moved their deposits to the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) during Bautista’s chairmanship of the agency. That explains the surge of deposits in the small bank during this time.

Did Andy Bautista cause the transfer of these deposits to LDB? If he did, does this not constitute graft, considering Bautista himself explained his close relationship with the owners of LDB as the reason he moved his own deposits to that bank?

If the sequestered companies moved their deposits from one universal bank to another, one might have excused that as routine business decisions. But moving hefty deposits from large banks to a small provincial bank raises questions.

The small bank might not have the capacity to use the surge in deposits productively, thereby inviting business risks. Too, the small bank might not have the capability to deliver the complex financial services corporations might require. By the admission of officers of LDB themselves, the small bank cannot handle foreign currency accounts. The large universal banks routinely deliver that service.

The sequestered companies, notwithstanding sequestration, presumably continue to conduct business. Therefore they require competent banking services. If these companies were forced to transfer their account to LDB, with that bank’s limited capabilities, the sequestered companies are short-changed at the very least. They get little value for their buck and assume business risks unnecessarily.

There didn’t seem to be a PCGG representative present at yesterday’s Senate hearing to shed light on what happened with these deposits. At any rate, it does appear the sequestered companies promptly shifted their deposits back to the big banks as soon as Bautista was moved to chair the Comelec.

Still, if and when Bautista appears before the Senate hearing, I hope one of the senators would ask questions about this apparently forced shifting of deposits to an inferior depository. LDB, after all, did not offer more attractive rates than the other banks. There was no visible advantage the sequestered companies derived from transferring their deposits from a universal bank to what is in actuality a rural bank.

Bautista himself, according the complaint affidavit submitted by his wife, did the same thing with his deposits. He moved them from big banks to the small LDB. Nothing indicates he got better returns from doing that.

Dr. Martin Bautista, brother to Andy, surfaced recently to claim actual ownership of the mind-boggling deposits the chairman kept. Nothing in Martin’s own background suggests he could have amassed the wealth that Patricia Bautista claims are lodged in Andy’s accounts. That minor detail, however, boastful claim that he had the volume of funds and Andy the financial acumen to make the deposited money gain the most possible.

If Andy were such a financial hotshot as his loyal (and shrill) brother alleges, he would not have stashed the money in a small bank that posted almost negligible profits. If the owners of this small bank could not make impressive profits for themselves, can they do so for depositors who maintain ordinary savings accounts?

If Andy had such financial acumen that his brother is so impressed with, he would have put the family money in stocks and doubled the fund over the past two years.  For the amount associated with his deposits, the big international investment banks would have happily assigned a private banker to assist Andy. LDB could not do that for him since this is not a universal bank.

But Andy now works for government. That hampers his ability to exercise his much vaunted financial acumen. It is strange that Martin Bautista entrusted his awesome funds to a brother handicapped with a job that necessarily lists him as a “politically exposed person” in the anti-money laundering procedures.

Yesterday, too, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio and former congressman Jacinto Paras filed an impeachment complaint against Andy Bautista. Unlike the other impeachment complaints against the Chief Justice, the Ombudsman and the Vice President lying idle for want of endorsement by a sitting legislator, three congressmen quickly endorsed this one.

This complaint could move very quickly at the House of Representatives. That will set the stage for another impeachment trial at the Senate that will distract the nation from genuinely urgent concerns.

Comelec commissioner Rowena Guanzon yesterday said she advised Andy Bautista to file for a leave of absence or even resign from the post he holds for the sake of the agency they all serve. Since this matter went public a few weeks ago, Bautista was hardly functional as Comelec chief. It is better, says Guanzon, for the Comelec to have an interim leader while Andy sorts out his problems. This will prevent this agency from falling into paralysis brought about by a crisis in leadership.

There is virtue in Guanzon’s advice. Even if we postpone drawing a conclusion on the allegations leveled against Andy Bautista, it is clear that this issue crippled his ability to effectively discharge his duties.

When Nicanor Faeldon was replaced as Customs commissioner, he welcomed the President’s decision saying this was best for the nation. The same reason is available for Andy Bautista should he resign from his post. Every public official should understand that the office is more important than the individual.

In the case of the Comelec, the credibility of our electoral processes is now on the line.