Doble, Raulgon, Garcia, E-VAT July 27, 2005

Contents: Writ on Doble, Raulgon Vs Partylist, CA denies AMLC MR vs. Garcia, EVAT extension

1. Court of Appeals heard today the writ of habeas corpus filed by T/Sgt. Vidal Doble's common law wife, Marieta Santos. Santos claims Doble and his wife Arlene, are being held in detention at the ISAFP Compound. Doble's counsel, Atty. Jose Ma. Ferrer II, theorizes that ISAFP doesn't want to let go of Doble because he knows the truth. Ferrer reiterates Doble's claim that ISAFP wiretapped the President and he was one of those who did the act. He just got the copy and turned it over to a certain Lito Santiago, who is a close friend of ex-NBI deputy director samuel ong. Ong later surfaced and claimed that it was "the mother of all tapes." The petition is up for resolution. (/jtm)

2. DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez itemizes the tranches of PDAF which the partylist congressmen got: Ocampo:P15.967M; BM Partylist Cong. Teddy Casino- P15.403M; BM Cong. Liza Maza, P27.5M; Akbayan Rep. etta rosales: P25.8M (/jtm).

3. The Court of Appeals yesterday dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council seeking to extend the freeze order on the P143 million alleged unexplained wealth of former Armed forces Comptroller, Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia.

In a two-paged resolution of the CA’s Former 17th Division penned by Associate Justice Marina Buzon, the appellate court said it could not act further on the motion for extension as matter of “judicial courtesy” to the Supreme Court which earlier enjoined the CA from further acting on the proceedings.

“The rule of ‘judicial courtesy’ would apply if there is strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot and moribund as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court,” the CA said.

Last month, the SC delivered twin setbacks against Garcia when it dismissed his petition seeking to stop forfeiture proceedings initiated by the Ombudsman and also found his lawyer guilty of contempt of court for forum shopping.

In an en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Dante Tinga, the SC called Garcia’s petition as a "naked abuse of the judicial process" because petitioners have already raised the same issues substantially during the Sandiganbayan trial.

Aside from dismissing his petition, the SC also penalized Garcia’s lawyer, Atty. Constantino De Jesus with P20,000 to be paid within ten days because of blatant forum shopping.

Garcia sought the high court’s order to restrain the Ombudsman and AMLC from further conducting forfeiture proceedings to recover his alleged illegally amassed wealth in the form of real properties and bank deposits, supposedly stashed in local banks and in the United States.

Aside from forfeiture cases, the disgraced AFP official was also slapped with charges for violations of the Articles 96 and 97 of the Articles of War before the martial court, respectively known as conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

The embattled general was also charged with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code and other charges stemming from dishonesty and grave misconduct.

In the ruling, the SC noted that Garcia's lawyer filed the petition before the Supreme Court and a motion to dismiss before the Sandiganabyan on the same day, November 17, in violation of the court's rules against forum shopping, or the filing of multiple cases involving the same issues before a number of courts in the hope of gaining a favorable ruling from one.

Lecturing the lawyer, the SC said that "as an officer of the court, his duties to the court are more significant and important than his obligations to his clients. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes his oath of office."

The court further pointed out that Garcia’s counsel failed to inform the court that he had filed a motion to dismiss in relation to the petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan.

The existence of the motion was only brought to the attention if the Court by the Office of the Ombudsman when it commented on Garcia's petition.
Garcia had gone to the SC to question a move last October by the Ombudsman, asking the Sandiganbyan to forfeit his known assets starting with a preliminary attachment on all properties, bank accounts and investments of the former AFP official and his family including wife Clarita and children Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark.

Among the properties cited was Garcia’s two condominium units, valued at $1.42 million, located at 222 East 34th Street, Apartment 2202 New York, New York, and Trump Park Avenue Condominium, 502 Park Avenue, Unit 6A, New York and some $785,630 that were transported by Garcia and his wife in the United States between November 4, 1993 and January 15, 2004.

The Garcia family also had two foreign currency accounts at the Allied Banking Corp. totaling $105,000.

Other assets include a residential house and lot located at 625 Vancouver Drive, Westerville, Ohio 43081; shares of Clarita and Ian Carl in the IJT Mango Orchard Inc., IJT Katamnan Corp. and some eight vehicles such as a Previa, Hilux and Rav 4 and Truck Bus of Toyota, a Civic and CRV of Honda, a Mitsubishi L300 and an Isuzu Elf Truck.

The charges against Garcia stemmed from incident wherein one of his two sons was intercepted by Customs and Immigration agents in the US while trying to smuggle in $100,000 at the San Francisco airport in California last December.

Garcia was further dragged in the investigation after he could not explain why his unexplained wealth was not reflected in his statement of assets and liabilities while he was managing the AFP’s budget from 2001 to March 2004. (/jiji)

4. E-VAT resolution delayed. SC Spokesperson Ismael Khan today said the court's resolution on EVAT law may be delayed because the Court took cognizance of the petition for prohibition (seeking to nullify) against the law filed by Tet Garcia. Khan said the court might not beat the self-imposed August 15 deadline but will try to come out with a decision within this month. Khan said the justices are deliberating the issue under three major concerns: 1. abuse of authority of the bicameral conference committee because it deleted certain provisions which were in the House and Senate Bills and added certain provisions which were not in the H.B. and S.B.; 2. undue delegation of the legislative power to the executive; and 3. enrolled bill concept. (/jtm)

4.a. SC decision on VAT faces more delay
Armand N. NocumInquirer News Service

THE POSSIBILITY of a slight delay in the resolution of the constitutionality issue of the expanded Value Added Tax Law before the Supreme Court has emerged after the high tribunal Wednesday gave a fifth petitioner against the revenue measure 10 days to comment on a petition he filed last week.
The court asked Bataan Governor Enrique Garcia Jr., whose petition was filed after the oral arguments of the four other petitioners were held last July 14, to submit his arguments for consideration of the court.
The decision could set back by up to two weeks the expected resolution of the case, the SC public information chief, Ismael Khan, conceded Wednesday.
“We are still hopeful that the court could still make it by Aug. 15,” Khan said, adding that the decision “could definitely be made within the month of August.”
After the July 14 hearing, the court gave the first four petitioners 10 days to submit a summary of their arguments. As a result, it was expected that the SC would be issuing its ruling on the case by the first week of August.
Khan said the justices were now tackling the three contentious points in the four earlier petitions. These concerned the alleged undue delegation of power to the President to raise the VAT rate; the allegation that the bicameral conference committee exceeded its authority in deleting or inserting provisions in the law; and the question of whether the court could look into the process involved in the passage of a law that is being assailed as being allegedly unconstitutional.
The issues were raised by four petitioners that included legislators and petroleum dealers*.
Khan said the high court cannot avoid the delay because it has to give due course to Garcia’s petition.
He said Garcia “has raised entirely new points that were not covered in the oral arguments or in the earlier petitions.”
Garcia argued that the VAT law would allow VAT-covered establishments to ultimately keep for their benefit a maximum of seven percent out of the 10 percent input tax credits, in violation of the basic constitutional principle that taxes should not benefit private interest but to finance and fund government functions and operations.
The input tax is paid by a manufacturer for the importation and purchase of raw materials and services. This is supposed to be offset by the output tax imposed on the sale or lease of taxable goods, services or properties.
The input tax was originally meant to address the under-reporting of output VAT and the over-reporting of input VAT by non-compliant taxpayers.
Meanwhile, Mandaluyong Representative Benhur Abalos on Wednesday proposed that the government impose a two-year moratorium on the collection of the VAT on oil companies and power firms, saying this would ease the burden on millions of taxpayers.
Abalos filed a joint House resolution on July 25 proposing the moratorium, in which he argued that even without the collection of the VAT on oil companies and power firms, the government could still reduce the budget deficit. (/nocum)
-----
*Petitioners are: ABAKA GURO Partylist, Francis Escudero, et.al., Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and Association of Petroleum Dealers. (/jtm)