SC defers action on Marcos, Ilocos 6 petition

The Supreme Court (SC) has deferred action on the petition of Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos and the six detained provincial officials seeking to stop the House of Representatives’ inquiry on the capitol’s alleged misuse of tobacco excise tax funds.

The high court was supposed to tackle the case in regular session yesterday, but three magistrates decided to inhibit, including Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta to whom the case was assigned.

Peralta recused himself from participating in the case, being a relative of one of the respondents, House majority leader and Ilocos Norte 1st district Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas.

Because of the inhibition, the SC had to set another raffle to determine which magistrate will be assigned as memberin-charge of the case. The justices then decided to reset deliberations to their next session on July 25.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and newly appointed Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr. also inhibited after issuing a joint statement earlier calling on the House committee on good government and public accountability to recall its show cause order against the three Court of Appeals (CA) justices who ordered the release of the “Ilocos 6.”

Mini-trucks, too

Some 70 mini-trucks the provincial government of Ilocos Norte had procured using tobacco funds remain unregistered with the Land Transportation Office (LTO), Deputy Speaker Sharon Garin said yesterday.

“Anyone will find it highly suspicious that these mini-trucks are all unregistered with the LTO and have no records proving that these were bought from any of the authorized dealers of vehicles in the Philippines,” she said.

She said even more suspicious was that the vehicles, supposedly of the China-based Foton brand, “were neither manufactured by Foton nor distributed here and bore another name – Forland.”

“Which company fabricated or distributed them and for how much? Only Governor Marcos can answer the numerous questions behind the irregularities involving the acquisition of these minitrucks, considering that the governor’s hand was in every stage of the procurement process – from the purchase request up to the signing of checks,” she added.

“She should explain how the vehicles were acquired and reached Ilocos Norte in the first place, and why they remain unregistered. Governor Marcos can also tell us why the exclusive dealer and distributor of Foton vehicles in the Philippines has no record of these vehicles bought by the Ilocos Norte provincial government,” Garin stressed.

Aside from the 70 mini-trucks, the Ilocos Norte provincial government also bought five secondhand buses and 40 multicabs.

All these vehicles cost P66.45 million and became subject of a House investigation and caused the detention of the provincial officials.

The House committee on good government and public accountability has said the use of cash advance for a huge purchase, procurement without public bidding and identification of a preferred brand of vehicle are all violations of the law, which Ilocos Norte committed.

The committee said the provincial government also violated Republic Act 7171, the law governing the use of tobacco funds, by using the money for vehicles.

This law states the funds should be used to promote the welfare of farmers through the implementation of cooperative, livelihood and agro-industrial projects and infrastructure such as farm-to-market roads.

Garin said all the documents pertaining to the cash advances and vehicle procurement have gone missing.

“None of the originals could be found either at the provincial capitol or the Commission on Audit stockroom in the province,” she said.

The House is holding six provincial officers for contempt for giving “evasive” answers regarding the cash advances and vehicle procurement.

In their petitions filed last week, Marcos and the Ilocos 6 asked the SC to stop the House probe on the alleged anomaly.

They sought the issuance of a writ of amparo to protect their “constitutionally guaranteed rights to liberty and security of person” and immediately remand the case to the CA as provided under court rules.