Ombudsman: Returning stolen public funds is accountability, not 'robbery'
Text size
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
The Office of the Ombudsman on Tuesday rejected claims by contractor Curlee Discaya that the government’s demand for the return of public funds amounted to robbery, stressing that restitution is a matter of accountability to the Filipino people.
Assistant Ombudsman and spokesperson Mico Clavano said Discaya’s remarks during a Senate inquiry on anomalous flood control projects were misplaced and trivialized the consequences of corruption.
Clavano was responding to statements made by Discaya during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on Monday, 19 January, where the contractor likened the government’s demand for the return of funds from allegedly anomalous flood control projects to theft.
According to Clavano, when public funds intended for flood control are stolen, the loss extends beyond money and directly affects public safety.
He said it was therefore “a mistake and a big joke” to describe restitution as robbery, adding that the Filipino people were the first victims.
Clavano stressed that returning government funds is not theft but responsibility.
Discaya’s wife, Sarah Discaya, is among those charged with malversation and graft in connection with an alleged P96.5 million ghost flood control project in Davao Occidental.
During the Senate hearing, Discaya told lawmakers that he felt he was being “robbed” when asked to return money to the government as part of the requirements to qualify for the Department of Justice Witness Protection Program.
His remarks came amid a heated exchange between Senator Rodante Marcoleta and Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon over the issue of restitution by applicants seeking entry into the witness protection program.
During the hearing, Marcoleta asked Discaya what the DOJ told him regarding restitution before he and his wife could be admitted into the program.
“Your Honor, we discussed how much we should restitute first… I couldn’t give an amount because for me, it's like we were the ones who were robbed,” Discaya said.
Fadullon, however, dismissed as “lies” Discaya’s claim that the DOJ immediately demanded the return of alleged ill-gotten wealth.
He explained that discussions initially focused on what Curlee and Sarah Discaya were willing to substantiate in their affidavits. Fadullon said the Discayas failed to communicate with the department, preventing the DOJ from extending appropriate protection and processing their application to the witness protection program.
