Ombudsman files 14 counts of graft vs Ilonggo lawmaker linked to contractor
MANILA, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman filed 14 counts of graft with the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan on Saturday, July 25, against USWAG Ilonggo Representative James “Jojo” Ang Jr., who’s allegedly linked to a construction firm.
“While sitting in Congress, [Representative] Ang holds a stake in a construction firm that won ₱214 million in DPWH contracts — and was paid nearly ₱199 million for them,” the Office of the Ombdusman said in a statement.
“The Constitution is clear: no lawmaker may be financially interested in a government contract during his term. Conflict of interest is not a gray area. It does not require proof that a deal was rigged or that cash changed hands — only that a public official profited, or stood to profit, from a government contract while in office. Here, and in many cases, the clear and thick constitutional line is constantly and blatantly being crossed,” it added.
The cases are for alleged violation of section 3(h) of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act No. 3019. This provision punishes individuals who have direct or indirect “pecuniary interest in any business or contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity.”
These cases are bailable.
The filing came two days before President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s 4th State of the Nation Address on Monday, July 27.
The Sandiganbayan’s 7th Division subsequently rejected Ang’s bid to have his graft case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, ruling that members of Congress remain under the anti-graft court’s jurisdiction in cases involving violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The court ruled on September 3 that RA 10660 did not remove lawmakers from the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, which was established under an earlier law.
The court also rejected Ang’s request to consolidate his 14 graft cases under one division.
Ang argued that consolidation would prevent delays and conflicting rulings, but the court said his claim that the cases involved common questions of law and fact was unsupported by evidence. It ruled, however, that the cases should be tried individually. – Rappler.com
