BLACK PROP VS BINAY PROVEN
That all those claims of corruption and billions amassed in bank accounts of Vice President Jejomar “Jojo” Binay through his alleged dummies, such as Gerry Limlingan, were nothing but a concerted demolition job by his political rivals in concert with some government agencies, can now be proven as political black propaganda.
The Inquirer last week rehashed a year-old story based, the report claimed, on the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) that found 242 bank accounts of Binay and his alleged dummies. This despite the fact that it is a crime for anybody, even a newspaper or media, to publish what is confidential from the AMLC as the Anti-Money Laundering Law (AMLA) clearly states.
Despite this breach of the law committed by both AMLC, the Ombudsman, along with the newspaper, whose leaker was former Vice Mayor Ernesto Mercado, the Inquirer again publish the same story, making it appear that it was a new one and even followed this up with yet another claim, tying the Vice President to the $81 million bank cyber heist, stating that Philrem, the company that changed the dollars into pesos, was also utilized by Binay in sending some $100 million abroad, which was yet another black propaganda meant to demolish the electoral chances of the VP in 2016.
Documentary evidence, however, shows that Vice President Binay does not have 242 bank accounts amounting to some P11 billion, deposited in various accounts of his and his alleged dummies. He only has one bank account with the amount of P1.7 million.
Despite Binay and his camp denying the rehashed story along with the newspaper’s story linking Philrem and Binay, which has no basis, the black propaganda against VP Binay continued, even picked up by the giant TV networks.
The Tribune obtained a copy of the court records , showing that last January 7, 2016, the AMLC submitted a motion before the Regional Trial Court Branch 53, Manila, the case it had filed against VP Binay and his son, Erwin Binay, the dismissed Makati Mayor.
AMLC case No. 15-007-53.
The AMLC Ex-Parte motion to the court was that the AMLC sought to have ist case dropped.
The AMLC motion was entitled” “Ex-Parte Motion to Drop Resppondents.
The court record shows as stated:
“Petitioner REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), respectfully states:
“1. Petitioner impleaded the following persons and entities as party respondents in its Petition for Civil Forfeiture filed before this Honorable Court:
a) ABBA Land, Inc.;
b) Agrifortuna, Inc.;
c) JC Binay Foundation, Inc.;
d) Makati Historical and Restoration Foundation, Inc.
e) Metrowaste Solid Waste Management Corporation;
f) Powerlink.com Corporation;
g) Kenneth Sabino S. Tan; and
h) Clara Mae U. Ong.
“2. There is no rule on dropping of respondents in A.M. No. 05-11-04-SO (Rules of Civil Forfeiture). Title 1, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Forfeiture, however, provides that The Revised Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily when not inconsistent with the provisions of the Rules of Civil Forfeiture.
“3. Rule 3. Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that “[p]arties may be dropped... on motion of any party ...at any stage the action and on such terms as are just.”
“4. Considering chat there are no bank accounts or other assets of the aforesaid named respondents to be forfeited in favor of the State, “it is respectfully prayed that the above mentioned individuals and entities be dropped as party respondents.
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the following persons and entities be dropped as party respondents:
“a) ABBA Land, Inc.;
“b) Agrifortuna, Inc.;
“c) JC Binay Foundation, Inc.;
“d) Makati Historical and Restoration Foundation, Inc.
“e) Metrowaste Solid Waste Management Corporation;
“f) Powerlink.com Corporation;
“g) Kenneth Sabino S. Tan; and
“h) Clara Mae U. Ong.
“Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are also prayed for.
“Makati City for Manila, 6 January 2016.
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
Tel. No.: 8186301 to 09 (Trunkline)
Fax No.: 8176037
Evidently, for the AMLC to seek the dropping of the case against Binay et al., meant that the AMLC could not prove its charges against VP Binay and son Erwin.
Yet the Ombudsman still came up with charges of graft and malversation against the Binays even as the Ombusman must have known that the AMLC had filed a motion for the court to drop the charges against The VP and his son.
Even the Inquirer, that claims to have access to the AMLC records, must have also known that the charges against VP Binay have been dropped by AMLC itself.
The motion to drop was filed and received by the RTC Manila court on January 7, 2016, and followed this up with the same court last February 16, 2016.
Both the Liberal Party and Davao Mayor and presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte have been using this claimed billions, based on the rehashed and false reports by the Inquirer, against the Vice President.
They have been claiming over and over again that the VP is corrupt, despite the absence of proof and based only on allegations that Binay has amassed billions, which have now been proven to be black propaganda.
Even Grace Poe has already judged Binay as corrupt, making snide remarks when she claims that she has never lied, never stolen, unlike a candidate who is corrupt, obviously referring to Binay.
The charges have been proven false, for why else would AMLC seek to have the case against Binay dropped?