BLANCAFLOR TO CRITICS: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Solons Nix State Fiscal's Bribery Denial, Charges

The fresh allegations raised by Department of Justice (DoJ)
Prosecutor John Resado that it was the legal counsel for the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) who had attempted to bribe
him elicited serious doubts from the members of the House committee
on dangerous drugs during a hearing yesterday.

The congressmen were also seen as using high pressure tactics on
Resado to get him to waive his rights under the bank secrecy law,
insinuating that he was afraid to waive his rights to have his bank
account scrutinized by the House because he was hiding something and
was guilty of having taken a bribe.

Resado, who was earlier pointed to as having in his account P1.6
million deposited on the day the dismissal of the drug case against
the three drug pushing suspects known as the "Alabang Boys," surfaced,

produced copies of his bank account with had a deposit of P800,000
before the House panel, but denied this amount came from a bribe.

He also accused PDEA lawyerAlvaro Lazaro who he said had attempted to
bribe him in exchange for the dropping of the case against the
Alabang Boys.

The congressmen expressed disbelief over Resado's
claims.

At the same time, DoJ Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor, receiving
information that he would be linked to the bribery allegations,
challenged his critics to produce evidence that would link him to
Alabang Boys controversy, through false reports about him supposedly
receiving P2.6 million in exchange for assistance in releasing the
suspects in the Alabang Boys case.

He pointed out that top officials of the PDEA have already cleared
him in connection with this issue.

Blancaflor strongly condemned allegations that he had received P2.6
million on the day he called up PDEA to inquire about the status of
the drug case filed against Jorge Joseph, Joseph Tecson and Richard
Brodett.

"There are obvious attempts to drag me further on this case,"
Blancaflor said. " I am challenging the people leveling this latest
accusation to come out openly and specify how, where and when I
received the P2.6 million. They better put up or shut up."

At the resumption of the House panel hearing, Resado testified that
PDEA counsel Lazaro called him up to tell him he had talked to the
prosecutor's superiors at the DoJ and that everything had been settled.

"Everything has already been arranged. We have manipulated the
evidence to make it easier for you to dismiss this case outright,"
Resado said, quoting Lazaro, adding that the PDEA lawyer called him
three times, twice in September and once in December, describing
those calls as bribe attempts.

"Mr. Lazaro is the architect of all these," Resado said. "He was
outraged maybe because he may not get paid off ("nabukulan siya)."

But Resado said he did not report the calls nor Lazaro's attempt to
bribe him and the lawyer's claim manipulating the evidence against
the Alabang Boys to Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and Chief State
Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno saying he did not want to clash with the
PDEA lawyer.

"I did not report it because I was trying to avoid getting personal
with Lazaro," Resado said.

But the congressmen still doubted Resado's version of the
controversial issue.

"We cannot see the logic in your statement, Senior Minority Leader
and Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez told Resado, who is also being
investigated for an P800,000 deposit made in his bank account.

"It was the PDEA that blocked the implementation of your release
order for the Alabang Boys citing DoJ Circular No. 46. If Lazaro
wanted the case to be dismissed, why would he do that?" Golez said,
adding that he was puzzled at Resado's non-disclosure of the
attempted bribe by PDEA to his superiors.

"Maybe a case should be filed against Mr. Resado for negligence in
failing to report a crime," Golez said.

Muntinlupa Representativee Ruffy Biazon and Niel Tupas also expressed
disbelief at Resado's statement.

"I don't see any point why he should bribe you when you dismissed the
case anyway," Tupas said.

"Why would Mr. Lazaro bribe you when, as you claim, Lazaro had
already tampered with the evidence to ensure that the case is
dismissed?" Biazon asked Resado. "I cannot see the logic."

Lazaro also strongly denied Resado's claims, even as he admitted
making calls to Resado. "What he is saying exposes the fallacy of his
mind," Lazaro said. "When he said I would not have my share of the
bribe, does he mean that he got his share and that I wasn't given
mine?"

Earlier in the hearing, Resado tried hard to convince the lawmakers
the money from his bank account was not bribe money but obtained from
his long-time investment, including his lending business.

While admitting that there was a deposit made to his account on Dec.
2 last year, Resado said that contrary to reports only one P800,000
entry was deposited to his account and not P1.6 million as claimed by
a certain Juan dela Cruz, who sent a letter to the NBI, DoJ and PDEA.

The House panel required Resado to submit a copy of his bank book to
show the transaction.

Although Resado agreed to submit a copy, he disagreed with the
solons' plan of inviting the bank officials to confirm or verify his
account.

"I will not waive my rights to secrecy. I do not want this to be
feasted upon by the public. This is a valid account, this is
updated," Resado said.

Resado stressed that he and his wife Rowena obtained their money from
the lending business in Tarlac and other investments.

He clarified that the P800,000 which he deposited on Dec. 2, 2008,
was part of the accumulated income of P1.2 from the lending business
which they started in 2000 or at least five years before he joined
the DOJ.

"I want to clarify that I deposited this amount and that it is clean
money,"he stressed.

But Resado said that volunteering information on his bank account did
not mean he was waiving his right to secrecy. He also said he
suspected that an employee of the bank fed the information to the
public.

He said this was not a registered business as he considered this as
part of the "informal economy."

The P800,000 deposit was the biggest so far, Resado said. He said the
amount was accumulated after he and his wife withdrew their
investments in Camiling Public Market in July after the mayor ordered
the demolition of the public market.

After an inventory of their investment, Resado said they discovered
that they had accumulated P1.2 million, including the P800,000 that
he deposited last Dec. 2.

But the lawmakers questioned Resado for not including the income from
his business in his statement of assets and liabilities.

Golez asked if Resado had reported in his income tax returns his
earning from his investments, but Quezon City Representative Vincent
Crisologo said this diverted from the issue being
investigated.

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga asked if the bank official could be
summoned to certify the accuracy of Resado's bank deposits.

For his part, Blancaflor recalled that during the previous hearings,
both PDEA Director Santiago and Marcelino, the head of the arresting
team in the Alabang Boys case, cleared him in testifying that he had
never called them again after he was informed on the status of the
case and PDEA's position of not releasing the suspects.

"If I am the obvious target of all of these, then my detractors
should spare all the other innocent persons and institutions and
concentrate their demolition job against me," Blancaflor said

Blancaflor also welcomed the findings of the NBI, which cleared him
and other DoJ officials of any irregularity, saying this NBI probe
would go a long way in finding out the whole truth behind this issue
and eventually spare all innocent parties that had been unfairly
dragged into this controversy.

At the same time, Blancaflor welcomed the creation of the independent
panel headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino
to investigate the allegations raised in connection with the Alabang
Boys issue.

He said those accusing him of any involvement in the case should come
up with specific charges complete with details. "This mudslinging
against everyone has to stop," Blancaflor said.

In his sworn affidavit, Blancaflor said his innocent inquiry into the
case of the Brodetts and his co-accused "was in answer to a verbal
complaint brought to (his) attention, fully aware of (his)
responsibility as a public officer to promptly respond to queries and
complaints under Article II Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
and pertinent regulations of the Civil Service Commission."

"It has always been my policy since I worked with the different
agencies of the government to answer and render public assistance to
all those who seek, however and whenever possible," Blancaflor stated
in his affidavit.