MANILA, Philippines - Justice Secretary Leila de Lima has defended the filing of the third batch of pork barrel cases amid complaints from the incumbent and former lawmakers, including administration allies, who were implicated.
In an interview, De Lima stood by the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that the lawmakers should still be held liable despite their common claim that their signatures were forged in documentary evidence.
Five of the nine lawmakers in the latest batch of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam cases – Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) director general Joel Villanueva, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, Manila Rep. Amado Bagatsing, former Pangasinan congressman and now Abono party-list Rep. Conrado Estrella III and La Union Rep. Victor Franciso Ortega – have vehemently denied the charges and claimed their signatures in documentary evidence gathered by NBI were forged.
The NBI Questioned Documents Division even confirmed that their signatures were indeed forged.
But De Lima explained such finding was not conclusive and binding.
“That supposed finding of the NBI QDD is not really binding. Also, it’s a matter of defense on the part of these respondents that should best be threshed out before the Sandiganbayan,” she said.
The NBI, in its complaint filed before the ombudsman last Friday, said the forgery defense would not suffice to debunk all the charges of malversation, direct bribery and violations of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against the lawmakers.
“In any event, malversation (of public funds) is also committed through negligence, in which case the signatures of the lawmakers are not necessary to prove that they allowed, through their negligence, the misappropriation and misuse of public funds entrusted to them,” pointed out the NBI probers supervised by DOJ Undersecretary Jose Justiniano.
De Lima also clarified that the findings would still be subject to validation by the field investigation office of the ombudsman before a preliminary investigation could be initiated.
“Just like the first and second batches, it is the call of the ombudsman to first conduct validation by its field investigation office before proceeding with the PI. The ombudsman must be able first to evaluate and assess the sufficiency of the evidence involving these nine lawmakers,” she said.