“Seized goods must be covered by receipts and properly documented and there is no need to withdraw items in bulk from a warehouse since only one of each item is needed to file charges against the shipper.”
by Ducky Paredes
Here’s the story at the BOC (Bureau of Customs): 50-inch plasma TV sets; several boxes of Nikon single reflex (SLR) cameras JVC car stereos and G-shock Casio watches; Sony Portable Play Stations; Panasonic wireless phones and DKNY and Bulgari perfume were all part of an illegal shipment seized by the Customs Investigation and Intelligence Service (CIIS) under the jurisdiction of Customs Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence Jairus Panguntalan in the Port of Manila Warehouse 159.
So far, a welcome development. However, according to a source from the BoC Enforcement and Security Service, someone from the CIIS, alleged to be Mitchel Verdeflor, CIIS Assistant Chief for Operations, took the items, allegedly as “samples” in the case that the BoC would file against the consignee.
When Customs Commissioner Napoleon ”Boy” Morales heard about this development, he vowed that heads would roll at the CIIS. Seized goods must be covered by receipts and properly documented and there is no need to withdraw items in bulk from a warehouse since only one of each item is needed to file charges against the shipper. Memorandum No.7-90 issued by then Commissioner Salvador M. Mison in 1990 states that “samples shall be limited to one of a kind and that immediately after the examination of the sample, the same shall be returned to the importer/consignee by the requesting/receiving party”.
Besides, CIIS agents are not authorized to get samples because it is not their duty to conduct examination and valuation of goods. That is the job of the examiner and even they are allowed only to get brochures, not the items themselves. Additionally, the claim of CIIS that what they took were for viewing purposes by media, is still wrong since such viewing should be done only in Warehouse 159, definitely not in Paguntalan’s office.
Coming to his department’s defense, CIIS chief of operations Eric Albano claims that the items are still in their office and are covered with official receipts. Paguntalan stated that the goods are secured as long as they are under CIIS custody. The question now is, are they actually still in his custody?
Albano and Verdeflor are already under investigation. Both have been charged before the Office of the Ombudsman by the Department of Finance Revenue and Integrity Protection Service (RIPS) for violation of the Anti-Graft Law. Both have failed lifestyle checks and have not yet been suspended only because of Paguntalan’s alleged connection with Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro.
If the pilferage is true and Paguntalan denies it, then that would be strange considering that his office can be reached only by passing through that of Albano’s where, according to reports, the goods were brought prior to being taken out of the CIIS. And, according to the latest information, four 50-inch plasma television sets were carted away, but only three were indicated in the receipts, belying Albano’s claim that all were documented.
Paguntalan has much to answer for, and being a top dog in an office tasked to run after illegal shipments, there ought to be a thorough investigation. Is Finance Secretary Gary Teves even aware of this matter? Has he heard reports that Paguntalan lives in lavish style, that he is rumored to own a yacht and speedboats moored in Antique? If Secretary Teves wants to follow the principle of command responsibility, he ought to bring this all the way to the attention of President Arroyo who is hard put at trying to refurbish her administration’s image of corruption.
* * *.
Marcelo Tecson sent me his comment on the Norzagaray land that was mortgaged to and acquired by the BSP from the Villars:
“It seems the point overlooked here is whether or not the 485-hectare Norzagaray land is subject to compulsory land reform coverage under existing laws. Based on area, classification, use, and slope of the land, it may be wholly or partly subject to compulsory land reform–whether it is tenanted or not, and regardless of who its owner is. If it is partly tenanted, or not tenanted at all, DAR is required under the law to look for qualified farmer beneficiaries within the community (or outside the community if necessary) and award the land to them.
“In the case of the Norzagaray land, its apparent past and present owners–Puyat family, Capitol Bank in behalf of the Villars, and now BSP–should have determined first whether or not such vast tract of land is subject to compulsory land reform coverage. If it is covered, the past and present owners have, at each one’s time of ownership, shown apathy to the farmer-tillers’ plight and rights over the land.
“In the case of Senator Manny Villar, as owner of Capitol Bank– the then owner of the Norzagaray land–he would have known as part of due diligence prior to land acquisition, that it has long standing actual tillers. After acquiring the land, his seeming disregard of the POOR farmer-tillers’ rights and welfare even on a voluntary basis contradicts his now professed pro-poor stance in his expensive TV ads.
“On the other hand, on the part of bangko sentral, it might have entered into a contract disadvantageous to the government when it accepted the Norzagaray land as (part?) payment of its P1.5 billion (loan) to Villar-owned Capitol Bank under a dacion en pago arrangement, because of the following:
“(1) It circumvented the restriction on sales of lands which are currently tenanted or with farmer-tillers (as prerequisite to transfer of agri lands, the Registry of Deeds requires seller’s affidavit that the land object of sale is not tenanted);
“(2) It accepted a large tract of land that, if eventually covered by compulsory land reform, will be subject to payment of just compensation to its owner–Bangko Sentral–at a price probably lower than the owner’s acquisition cost (thereby causing financial loss to the owner)–because calculation of just compensation is governed by guidelines prescribed by land reform laws, not by the owner’s actual cost.
“(3) Bangko Sentral failed to protect itself (or the government) from potential problems on the Norzagaray land–which potential problems became actual when farmers actually filed a court case against the central bank on the issue of ownership, which problem will become more acute once the farmers invoke the legal requirement to have the land subjected to compulsory land reform coverage.
“Bangko Sentral should have required–but did not–Capitol Bank’s owners (or the Villars) to sign a surety agreement on the p1.5 billion cash advance in their personal capacity, as is required by private banks dealing with similar bad-loan problems, which should include the provision that the stockholders will replace the ceded land–or pay the corresponding obligation in cash–if the land ownership and possession are attacked by third parties, something that Senator Villar is very much in a position to currently do. In the absence of such iron-clad guaranty that could have kept Bangko Sentral free and harmless from any problems that might arise on the Norzagaray land, the central bank has to fight it out with the farmers in the present court litigation in Malolos, Bulacan.
“If indeed Bangko Sentral entered into a contract disadvantageous to the government, then its responsible officials (whether they personally profited or not from the transaction) as well as the contracting private parties may be held liable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
# # # #
hvp 03.08.10)
Post a Comment