OMBUD INITIATES FORFEITURE CASE VS. AMPATUAN ESTATE

Investigators find unexplained wealth valued at almost P55 million

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has ordered the filing of a forfeiture case against the estate of the late Maguindanao Governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr. and his spouse Bai Laila Uy Ampatuan after a lifestyle check showed that the couple has unexplained wealth valued at almost P55 million.

In a statement posted on its website, the Ombudsman said investigators found that the late governor’s wealth “is manifestly out of proportion to respondent’s salary as former Governor of Maguindanao and to their other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired properties.”

The forfeiture case would cover properties acquired by the Ampatuan couple in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 amounting to P54,965,526.88.

The late governor and his family were implicated in the Maguindanao massacre that killed 58 people, including 32 journalists, in 2009. Murder charges have been filed against his son Andal “Unsay” Jr., and more than 10 relatives who are surnamed Ampatuan.

The Ombudsman said Ampatuan Sr. failed to declare 15 real estate properties located in Cotabato and Davao cities, with a total declared value of P55.134 million.

The late governor also failed to declare 25 vehicles with a total value of P27.57 million, including 10 that were paid in cash, and 23 firearms worth P3.838 million.

Republic Act No. 1379 provides that any property found to have been unlawfully acquired would be forfeited in favor of the state.

In its Joint Resolution approved on 23 December 2016, Ombudsman Morales stated that “under Section 2 of Republic Act 1379, whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.”

The Ampatuans had challenged the Ombudsman’s findings, arguing that the properties mentioned “were either registered in the name of another person or lacked evidence to support the claimed ownership thereof.”

Ampatuan Sr. had also claimed that he inherited several properties from his father, who was affluent, and the firearms “were given by friends, relatives and political allies through the years without monetary consideration.”

Morales, however, rejected their defenses. “There is clear and convincing evidence that Ampatuan accumulated wealth manifestly disproportionate to his lawful and legitimate income for 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007, and he and his family failed to lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income due to their extravagant and ostentatious display of wealth,” the Ombudsman ruled.