|
SAYING
that prosecution for the violation of a law is not
persecution, the US Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
has denied the petition filed by former agriculture
undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-Joc” Bolante, alleged
architect of the P728-million fertilizer scam, seeking
reconsideration of the decision made by the Chicago
Immigration Court rejecting his claim for political
asylum.
The
setback on Bolante’s bid to evade prosecution in
connection with the fertilizer scam was revealed by
lawyer Harry Roque while attending the Assembly State
Parties of the International Criminal Court at the
United Nations in New York.
Roque
welcomed the rulings, saying that they constitute a
triumph for the rule of law.
“At
least, Bolante failed in abusing the fundamental right
of asylum which has literally meant the difference
between life or death for many individuals who are, in
fact, suffering from a genuine fear of political
persecution,” he said.
The BIA,
in a decision issued on June 25, 2007, held that Bolante
did not present any evidence of past mistreatment or
harm. It noted that there were presently no charges
pending against the respondents with regard to the
fertilizer scam and only an arrest warrant for his
failure to appear and testify before the Senate
committee.
“For all
the reasons noted by the immigration judge, we agree
that the respondent failed to establish that he suffered
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of his imputed political
opinion,” the BIA said.
Bolante
left the country at the height of the Senate’s
investigation into the alleged fertilizer scam and was
arrested and detained in Los Angeles on July 7, 2006,
after airport authorities found him in possession of a
revoked US visa.
The visa
was revoked after Bolante was tagged by the Senate as
the mastermind of the scam. The former agriculture
undersecretary later applied for political asylum,
saying that he fears returning to the country because
there is a bounty for his capture owing to his failure
to comply with the subpoena of the Senate.
He added
that he believes that any number of criminal and
political groups will seek his capture in order to
collect the bounty.
Bolante
said he believes that the government of the Philippines
will not be able to protect him from these groups.
Owing to
the denial of his petitions by the Chicago Immigration
Court and BIA, Bolante has elevated his petition before
the Federal Court of Appeals where oral arguments were
heard on
February 11, 2008.
Roque
said the federal court is expected to decide on
Bolante’s petition within four months.
In a
decision dated February 9, 2007, the Chicago Immigration
Court rejected Bolante’s claim for asylum owing to the
latter’s failure to establish that he suffered past
persecution nor a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of his imputed political opinion.
The
court also did not find the witnesses for Bolante—his
son, Owen, Department of Agriculture Undersecretary
Felix Montes and retired Maj. Gen. Rodolfo Estrellado,
credible.
They
testified that “Bolante’s life is in danger and that
lots of people are out to get him.”
“Moreover, even if the political motivation of the
alleged persecutor were the relevant issue, legitimate
prosecution or investigation for a crime has never been
held to constitute persecution….Certainly, the
government of the Philippines [including the Senate] has
the right to investigate allegations of corruption by
other members of the government. Therefore, it is clear
that the Senate of the Philippines has the right to
investigate allegations that the respondent was involved
in diverting agriculture funds for illicit purposes,”
the decision said.
Roque,
together with UP Law Profs. Merlin Magallona, Raul
Pangalangan and lawyer Romel Bagares, filed an
opposition to Bolante’s petition for political asylum.
In his
petition for review pending with the federal court,
Bolante’s lawyer offered as proof of persecution the
fact that while the Senate has issued a warrant of
arrest against Bolante, the Ombudsman, the lawful body
that should file criminal charges against him, has not
done so. This according to Bolante’s counsel, proves
that the charges against Bolante are baseless and merely
intended to persecute him. |