Ombudsman must act firmly on Genuino case

THE case against ex-Pagcor Chairman Efraim Genuino and - mission (PSC) in remitting funds directly to the Philippine Amateur Swimming Association Inc. (PASA) as an opportunity to demonstrate the Duterte administration’s resolve to

So far, however, the Ombudsman seems to be getting off to a slow start on what appears to be a virtual open-and-shut case.

The charges against Genuino and the other ex-Pagcor personnel allege that the PSC’s 5 percent share of Pagcor’s income in 2007-2009 was diverted by Genuino to PASA, which then distributed the money to various parties, including a school and aquatic center “effectively owned and controlled” by Genuino and his family.

The funds should have been remitted to the PSC instead, whose board would then determine how to best distribute it among the many organizations under its umbrella, including PASA.

April 2007 to August 2009, alleged that Genuino and his 2016. The second case covered the period September 2007 to May 2009, and charged the conspirators with diverting slightly more than P37 million of PSC’s rightful share of Pagcor revenue to PASA.

Earlier this month, however, the Ombudsman approved a recommendation from its prosecutors to withdraw the charges in the earlier, smaller case, on the basis of their being included in the second set of charges covering a much larger amount.

The Ombudsman’s handling of the Genuino case is troubling on a number of counts. While the accused are just that — accused, and entitled to a fair chance to defend themselves — there is clearly strong probable cause to proceed with the

The basic facts of the case are unambiguous: The PSC was entitled by law to a known amount of Pagcor’s revenue during the time periods in question, yet that amount was remitted to an organization not entitled to it, without the PSC’s knowledge or authorization. The responsible Pagcor was done, or they do not.

There is no obvious reason why there should be any delay in bringing this straightforward case before the court. Likewise, despite the explanation that the smaller case could be withdrawn due to its being part of the larger case, there is no obvious reason why any of the charges should be dropped at this late juncture.

If it was really a matter of consolidating two similar cases, or expanding one case on the basis of information received later, the appropriate adjustments should have been made at the time the second, larger case was being prepared. That did not happen, and so the questions which the long delay raises about the validity of both cases might only be answered by letting the Sandiganbayan decide on them both.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” or so the old saying goes, and in this country that has been burdened by widespread corruption for so long, any apparent lack of resolve only emboldens those who seek to enrich themselves at public expense to act with even greater impunity.

That cycle can only be broken when swift and resolute and to bring their cases before the court. We strongly urge the Ombudsman to do precisely that in the case of the ex-Pagcor chief and his co-accused.