THE National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has denied the allegations made by former congressman Mike Defensor that its men beat up a former aide of resigned Ako Bicol Party List Rep. Zaldy Co and forcibly flown the latter and his pregnant wife out of the country.
In a statement, the NBI said Defensor’s allegations were ‘unfounded, unsupported by evidence, and purely speculative.’
The NBI also challenged Defensor to present evidence to back up his allegations.
In his interview over Bilyonaryo New Channel, Defensor also claimed that the NBI provided Estrada and his wife fake passports before they were flown to Chile to prevent them from testifying before the Senate in connection with the multi-billion anomalous flood control and infrastructure projects of the government.
However, the NBI countered Defensor’s claim, stressing that they never had custody of Estrada and his wife.
It added that there is no existing complaint, report, or medical record showing that Estrada or his wife suffered physical harm.
‘We categorically condemn any false, malicious, or unverified statements intended to undermine the credibility and integrity of our institution. We reaffirm our commitment to transparency, due process, and the rule of law,’ the NBI said while expressing its readiness to be investigated in connection with the issue.
The NBI said it had already talked with Defensor on the matter and the latter gave his assurance that he would submit evidence to support his claims.
‘Should the evidence so warrant, the Bureau shall proceed with the appropriate investigative actions. Absent any credible proof, these allegations remain unfounded, cannot be given weight, and may even lead to prosecution for its malicious intent to undermine the credibility and integrity of the Bureau,’ it pointed out
ICI mulls indirect contempt vs CO
Meanwhile, the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) said it is mulling to file indirect contempt charges against Co for his failure to heed its summons to appear before its investigation.
The ICI first issued a subpoena against Co last October 8, requiring him to attend its hearing scheduled on October 14 but the former solon did not show up.
It issued another subpoena for Co to appear at its November 12 hearing but it was not accepted, according to ICI Executive Director, lawyer Brian Keith Hosaka.
‘The legal team will now look into the possibility of filing any petition before the regional trial court for indirect contempt,’ Hosaka said.
Co, who previously served as chair of the appropriations committee, left the country last July to undergo medical treatment in the United States.
The former solon has been criminally and administratively charged before the Ombudsman for allegedly benefitting from the P289.5 million anomalous flood control project in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Co has recently released a series of video statements accusing former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. of receiving kickbacks from flood control projects undertaken by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that was made possible through budget insertions
He also confirmed the statement made by his ex-aide, former Marine officer Orly Guteza, before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee about delivering cash in kickbacks to Malacañang and residence of Romualdez in Forbes Park.
Co also claimed that Marcos received P25 billion, representing 25 percent in ‘SOP’ kickbacks from the P100 billion in insertions.
In the said video, Co showed photos of several luggage purportedly containing cash intended for Marcos and Romualdez.
Co and 17 other individuals for criminal and administrative charges in connection with the P289.5 million anomalous flood control project in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
Hosaka, however, downplayed the value of Co’s video statements in the ICI’s ongoing probe because it has yet to be verified and authenticated. ‘Well, definitely we cannot use it because it is not verified. Unless, we have other evidence, or submitted evidence, which are verified or really strong, that is the only time we can truly give it attention and use it in our referrals,’ Hosaka said at a press briefing on Monday.
Hosaka confirmed that former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernado has applied as a state witness under the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Witness Protection Program in connection with the flood control scandal.
Hosaka said Bernardo cited his pending application as his excuse for not attending the ICI’s hearing scheduled Monday. According to Hosaka, the former DPWH secretary sought to become a state witness based on the second supplemental affidavit that he read before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee last November 14.
In his letter, Bernardo told the ICI that under Republic Act No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, he is not allowed to disclose information in connection with his application as a state witness.
‘Because of this, the ICI accepted his letter and affidavit so we can evaluate and include them in our investigation. This is the reason why our hearing did not push through this afternoon,’ Hosaka said.
DOJ mum on Bernardo’s WPP application
Meanwhile, the DOJ is mum on the statement made by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian that Bernardo has returned the kickbacks he allegedly took from funds allotted for the government’s flood control projects.
Gatchalian, in a radio interview, said restitution is part of the memorandum of agreement that Bernardo needs to sign with the DOJ in order to become a state witness.
When sought for the DOJ’s reaction on Gatchalian’s statement, its spokesman, lawyer Polo Martinez, reiterated the confidentiality of proceedings under R.A. 6981.
‘We’ll have to strictly abide by Section 7 of R.A. 6981 for this. Unless a written order has been issued by the Department of Justice, all proceedings and actions taken in the Witness Protection Program shall be kept confidential,’ Martinez said.
‘This includes the memorandum of agreement agreed upon by a covered witness and the Department, if any,’ he added.
Under the said provision, any person who violates the confidentiality of said proceedings could face imprisonment of one to six years aside from disqualification from holding a public office or employment for a period of five years.