Senate minority blitz turned up

The most recent attack on a political family appears to be the most blatant yet in the ongoing game of domination.

Legal scholar Anthony Vista made a compelling case that the graft complaint against the Villars has a political dimension, arguing that it could be intended to pressure senators Camille and Mark Villar to switch sides in the impeachment equation.

Public attention has focused on the Villar name since the Office of the Ombudsman opened a preliminary investigation into graft complaints involving PrimeWater Infrastructure Corp. and several local water districts.

But Vista pointed to a fundamental legal issue: A graft case under Republic Act 3019 must begin with an unlawful act committed by a public officer — not simply with the owners of a private company.

The distinction, he argued, raises questions about whether the case is being pursued on its legal merits or used as leverage in a larger political contest.

Vista spent a decade as an assistant special prosecutor at the Ombudsman, trying corruption and forfeiture cases before the Sandiganbayan.

He argued that the inquiry has been twisted backward. The complaints invoked the anti-graft law, naming the entire Villar family, PrimeWater executives and some 32 water-district officials based on allegedly disadvantageous joint venture agreements, poor water service and unpaid obligations.

Section 22 of Republic Act 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that private persons may be included in a graft case only when they are alleged to have conspired with a government officer.

The Ombudsman must first identify company officials, the act complained of, and the reason that the act may amount to graft.

Accordingly, the water-district officials who represented the government in these transactions cannot be treated as incidental respondents.

A section of the law speaks of a public officer who, on behalf of the government, enters into a contract that is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to it, whereas PrimeWater was merely the private counterparty.

The distinction between contract and graft matters in the charges. If PrimeWater entered into valid joint venture agreements and later failed to deliver the promised service, maintain facilities or pay what was due, the resulting dispute may amount to a breach of contract, which does not become a crime merely because the other party is a government entity.

Vista argued that poor performance years after signing, moreover, does not show that the agreement was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous when it was made.