Part Two
Solarz again
ANOTHER investigation had also been undertaken, this time by the US General Accounting Office (GAO). This probe was also instigated by New York Congressman Stephen Solarz and commissioned by Sen. Edward Kennedy, who, while the counting of ballots in the 1986 snap election was still in progress, declared that “Corazon C. Aquino won that election lock, stock and barrel,” although, as journalist James Hamilton-Paterson noted, “he had not been in Manila at the time.”
On May 2, 1986, the GAO submitted its report to Solarz. The GAO said: “We have examined the accountability and control over US assistance given to the Philippines. Between fiscal years 1978 and 1985, the United States made available to the Philippines almost $1.3 billion in Economic Support Fund [ESF], Development Assistance [DA], Public Law 480 Food Aid and military assistance.
“Financial and administrative controls were adequate to ensure that ESF local currency disbursements for project activities were justified. Financial transactions showed approved amounts to have been disbursed and received by contractors.
“There was no indication of withdrawals from the accounts for unauthorized construction activities.
“We received several allegations concerning the misuse of US assistance, such as incomplete or nonexistent facilities, overcharges and substandard construction. We interviewed the individuals making the allegations and tried to document instances of abuse.
“We could not substantiate the charges.
“None of the officials of the multilateral organizations we spoke with were aware of diversion of assistance.”
Over a decade later, on March 25, 1996, Rep. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos then of the First District of Leyte would protest to her colleagues in Congress.
“This report was never made public. Neither did Solarz submit his findings to the United States Lower House.
“The accusations against Marcos continued in the American media based on the allegations of Solarz. Neither the State Department nor the appropriate Congressional committees made public their comments on the report, if any were made at all. The American media obviously did not request for a copy, or if they did, never released this to the public. Solarz of the US House Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific Affairs continued his attacks on Marcos, in spite of the US GAO Report.”
Why were the official reports (NRB and GAO) that absolved President Marcos ignored, if not suppressed?
What did Solarz stand to gain from vilifying Marcos? What possible motivation was compelling enough for him to disregard the official reports? If he did not relish the politically depressing step of apologizing to the Marcoses, he could at least have stopped his derogatory crusade.
Solarz died of cancer in 2010, one year after President Aquino passed away, also of cancer.
Cory and US govt charged Marcos
On June 11, 1986, the Aquino administration “authorized” the US government to file criminal charges against the Marcoses in America. This weird maneuver was consummated in Manila with the signing of a document, “Agreement on Procedures for Mutual Legal Assistance,” by PCGG Chairman Jovito R. Salonga and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Victoria Toensing of the US Department of Justice.
The US Justice Department had earlier said, “Mr. Marcos should not be indicted [in the US] until the government of the Philippines had provided full waiver of his residual immunity.” Ambassador Emmanuel Pelaez signed the waiver for the Philippine government. Apparently, this waiver was still inadequate, and so the Salonga-Toensing agreement was formulated.
Following the signing of this agreement, a criminal case was filed in Los Angeles against the
Marcoses for violating the US Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.
Back in the Philippines, five months had elapsed after the PCGG’s creation. However, the catchphrase “ill-gotten wealth” remained ill defined, drawing a reaction from civil libertarian Renato Constantino:“…the scope of what comprises ill-gotten wealth must be clearly delineated.
“Does it cover only Marcos and his cronies? One very valid objection to the executive order which created the PCGG is the fact that insofar as sequestration is concerned, the order appears to apply only to ‘Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates,’ and may not be applicable to others [including present government officials and their own close associates] who may also have acquired
ill-gotten wealth.
“Ill-gotten wealth is simply stealing the people’s money from government coffers. Ill-gotten wealth is money coming out of graft or commissions given to the power holders. How does the PCGG propose to distinguish between what is legitimate acquisition of assets [even if they were concessions by the granting power] from the actual wealth of the possessor?”
The PCGG thought it knew what hidden wealth was, and where it might be found. It jumped into action with relish. It initially sequestered 218 companies with equities worth P10.7 billion in the first 100 days, plus P1.837 billion worth of jewelry, aircraft and motor vehicles. Then it started having trouble when courts insisted on due process while the inquisitive alternative press demanded transparency.
To be continued