Frasco is shockingly ignorant of bribery, libel laws
First of four parts
CEBU 1st District Rep. Franco Duke Frasco filed a libel case against me last month, alleging that I libeled him for writing that “he in effect committed bribery when he voted for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte in exchange for various benefits from House Speaker Martin Romualdez.” (This was a shock to me, to be honest, as I must have read the libel law a dozen times, so that in my 30 or so years as a journalist and writing hundreds of critical articles against very powerful personalities, I have never been accused of libel).
Contrary to Frasco and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cebu head Rennan Oliva’s claim that this allegation has no basis, that it was fake news, it was the congressman himself — reported by many newspapers last Feb. 11 — who admitted it in a speech at a political rally that day. He incriminated himself, even posting his speech on his Facebook page! And he would blame me for his foolish fiasco?
It is irrelevant to the bribery law that instead of “bribes,” he referred to it as funding support from the leadership of the House of Representatives for his programs benefiting his constituents in his hometown Liloan. He had declared that this was in exchange for his vote to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte.
His words* which I quote verbatim:
“The number one reason I signed the impeachment complaint because of our programs, projects, and developments here in my district. I want to ensure our programs and projects here continue. Heaven forbid, but what if all of them are stopped? The programs and projects will not continue. If I do not side with the majority in Congress, some projects might not receive support. Where will my projects go? Will I still be able to provide assistance to our fishermen? There are 16 scholars in my district, 16 scholars who are hoping to receive support from the government so they can finish their education. Support for solo parents, persons with disabilities, vendors, drivers, barangay security officers. University projects for all, the Liloan hospital, the government center, and the airport.”
Penal Code
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code reads in part: “Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act… in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods…” — which is six to 15 years in prison.
Frasco agreed to “perform an act with the performance of his official duties”: He voted to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte, one of the most important duties of a member of Congress under Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, that specifies the process of impeaching a high official. He explained that he did this to ensure funding and support for his programs for his constituents.
The 1989 Graft and Corrupt Practices Act also defines as an instance of corruption requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
Frasco was promised the other benefits for his district in exchange for his intervention, i.e., voting to impeach Sara Duterte.
Frasco appears to be ignorant of the fact that bribery is still bribery, punishable for at least six years in prison even if the proceeds are used to benefit others. The Supreme Court has ruled so in several cases. Frasco’s ignorance is emphasized by the fact that several such cases were high-profile ones.
Garcia
The Armed Forces comptroller, the former general Carlos Garcia, was charged in 2006 with plunder and violations of the anti-graft law for allegedly receiving bribes related to military contracts. Garcia’s defense claimed that some of the funds were used for charitable purposes and to support subordinates, suggesting a lack of personal enrichment. The Supreme Court upheld the charges, ruling that the act of receiving bribes in connection with official duties constitutes corruption, regardless of how the proceeds were later distributed.
The court clarified that the law does not require personal gain as an element of the crime — merely requesting or receiving a benefit to influence an official act is sufficient. The Sandiganbayan convicted Garcia in 2005, sentenced him to 18 years in prison and ordered the payment of fines of over P400 million. He was released after serving 12 years of his 18-year sentence for good behavior.
The court even ruled as “indirect bribery” and imposed severe penalties in cases of obviously good intentions of the accused, as in the case against the mayor of a small town who accepted donations to fund community projects.
I think Frasco’s case is an open-and-shut case of bribery, which cries out for the opposition in his district or even any Filipino wanting to rid our country of corruption to file a case against him for bribery.
Some 239 members of Congress voted in 2024 to impeach Sara Duterte. The next day — and since so many knew what happened — reports leaked that each of those who voted was offered by House Speaker Martin Romualdez P50 million in government dole out moneys (the Ayuda and ASIK) and P100 million in public works funds for each of their districts, in the form of small infrastructure funds, from which politicians can easily extract “commissions.”
Romualdez
Neither Romualdez nor any of his lieutenants denied the report. How could they as it was widely known — even disseminated — to everyone in Congress, so that Romualdez managed to get so many votes to impeach Sara in a few hours’ time.
It was the only explanation why 239 congressmen dared to raise the ire of the popular Sara, who could campaign against them in the coming May elections. Sara herself disclosed that several representatives approached her to apologize, explaining in tears, that they had to vote against her as they needed the funds to directly or indirectly finance their reelection bids.
Frasco is guilty of something else, and you decide what to call it.
It was Frasco, and only Frasco, among the 239 representatives, who admitted in public that he voted to impeach Sara in order to obtain financial benefits from the House leadership. He even posted this admission in his Facebook page, in his speech confessing to such.
Indeed, several newspapers found his admission astonishing, virtually a whistleblower’s revelation that they reported on it Feb. 12 with such headlines: “Frasco explains vote for impeachment,” (The Manila Times, Feb. 12); “Impeachment vs Sara: Cebu’s Duke Frasco tells all” (Cebu Daily News, Feb. 12); “Rep. Frasco, husband of tourism chief Christina bares reason why he backed VP Sara impeachment” (Manila Bulletin).
The Supreme Court in several cases has emphasized another principle with regard to the crime of libel, which Frasco and NBI Cebu director appear to be ignorant of.
In several cases (Lopez v. Court of Appeals, Borjal v. Court of Appeals, Brillante v. Court of Appeals, Disini v. Secretary of Justice, among others), the Supreme Court emphasized that a libelous statement must be made with malice. Without malice, even a defamatory statement does not constitute libel, particularly when it serves the public interest, a principle discouraging officials from being “onion-skinned.”
The Disini decision is important in that it extended the malice requirement to cyber libel, which was based on a new law, to ensure consistency with the Revised Penal Code.
It also maintained that there are higher requirements for public officials to prove there was malice, because voted by the public and their salaries paid for by taxpayers, the Press representing the people have all the right to air complaints and allegations against them.
Freedom
Such a ruling is important, the Supreme Court said, in order to protect the freedom of the press, a pillar of any democratic system. It pointed out this principle is intended to assure that journalists are not intimidated or become timid because of fear of politicians who presumably have the resources and power to pursue expensive court litigation.
How can Frasco claim I wrote my piece with malice when I don’t even know from Adam this obscure congressman who obviously would not have been elected to his post if he were not married to the daughter of Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, of the powerful Cebu political clan. Garcia though was recently suspended from her post by the Ombudsman for issuing a special quarry permit to a construction company without requiring an environmental compliance certificate and other documents.
I can’t imagine why Cebuanos would vote for Frasco, who doesn’t even know what bribery means. What if Frasco demands SOP from a contractor, and claims the proceeds will be for the poor people of his district?
*I will be posting on my website the transcript of Frasco’s self-incriminating speech, in the original Bisaya and an English translation.
On Monday: NBI Visayas launched a media blitz lynching me. Why would it?
(The views expressed therein are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, officers, staff, publisher and owners of this paper).
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com
Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/shop
The post Frasco is shockingly ignorant of bribery, libel laws first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.
Frasco is shockingly ignorant of bribery, libel laws
Source: Breaking News PH
No comments: