Roberto V. Ongpin takes his oath during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the DBP behest loans. LYN RILLON
Finally appearing before a Senate committee looking into the loans he obtained from Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), businessman Roberto Ongpin on Monday said聽 he did not obtain behest loans from the state-owned bank based on a memorandum issued by former President Fidel Ramos in 1992.
But Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was not convinced by Ongpin鈥檚 explanation.
鈥淲as President Ramos鈥� memo a law? An executive order? A President cannot enact a rule that has the effect of a law. I suppose he issued that memo as instructions to subalterns in dealing with nonperforming loans during his administration (while the Senate) hearings are in aid of legislation to see if corrective measures are necessary,鈥� Enrile said.
Ongpin also said that former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo was not the one who paved the way for the two loans totaling P660 million he obtained from the bank.
鈥淢ike Arroyo is a friend of mine and has been so before (his wife) Gloria鈥� was elected President. But friendship does not mean I was his crony nor that I fronted for him in any of my investment banking deals, much less the deal at hand,鈥� he said.
He said it might come as a surprise to his detractors from DBP that he did not need a 鈥渂ehestor鈥� to get the loans.
At previous Senate hearings, Ongpin, a former trade minister during the Marcos regime, was also accused of insider trading because he was able to acquire a block of Philex Mining Corp. shares which he immediately turned around and sold at a huge profit to another businessman, Manuel V. Pangilinan, two years ago.
Ongpin applied for two loans from DBP. The first, for P150 million, was granted in May 2009 and the second, for P510 million, six months later.
He used these to purchase 50 million shares from Philex Mining Corp., the country鈥檚 largest gold and copper mining firm.
Senators were aghast at how Ongpin paid P12.75 for each Philex share and later sold the entire block聽 for P21 each to Pangilinan.
Ongpin complained that when Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz made a presentation before the Senate committee investigating the loans he obtained from the DBP, 鈥渉e (went) straight to the eight criteria for determination of what is a behest loan (but)鈥onveniently failed to read the first sentence of the memorandum order鈥檚 Section 1.鈥�
Ongpin was referring to Section 1 of Memorandum Order No. 61 issued on Nov. 9, 1992. The order called on an ad hoc fact-finding committee on behest loans to 鈥渋nclude in its investigation, inventory and study all nonperforming loans which shall embrace both behest and nonbehest loans.鈥�
That he paid the two loans totaling P660 million obtained by his company Delta Ventures Resources Inc. (DVRI), in 2009 way ahead of schedule only meant they were not 鈥渘onperforming鈥� and therefore not behest, he said.
鈥淭he bottom line is clear and undeniable: These loans could never be labeled as behest because no powerful government officials or individual intervened,鈥� Ongpin said.
鈥淎lso, they were never in default, were fully collateralized and fully paid. More importantly, no injury was caused to the DBP. On the contrary, DBP made a pile of money (about P1.4 billion to be exact),鈥� he added.
鈥楤别丑别蝉迟辞谤鈥�
Enrile said Ongpin was the 鈥渂ehestor鈥� himself.
鈥淚t turns out you were the one negotiating with DBP and still we have to find out whether DBP was influenced by your presence in negotiating these loans,鈥� Enrile added.
鈥淚n that case, you are the behestor for DVRI. Therefore, this could be a behest loan. I just want to clarify that, all of you here must be very careful,鈥� he noted.
Senator Edgardo Angara said that if Ongpin鈥檚 loans were paid on time, 鈥渋t is immaterial whether the criteria listed in Memoramdum Order No. 61 were present 鈥� That issue ought to be set aside so we can move on to other issues.鈥�
Enrile however, was unconvinced.
鈥淚f a loan was given based on influence or extraneous consideration because of the nature of the negotiating party or his stature in light of the financial condition of the borrower which is on record, DVRI, then this is a behest loan. It was given at the behest of somebody influential enough to (pressure) DBP to lend him the money. That is the practice we must address by legislation,鈥� he said.
Senator Francis Escudero likened Ongpin鈥檚 case to the 鈥渞ich-father syndrome鈥� in which a debtor would use his father鈥檚 assets to obtain a loan.
Rey David, DBP president at the time Ongpin鈥檚 loans were granted, said DVRI presented as collateral its Philweb shares worth P1.2 billion.
鈥淒id you check the quality of Philweb, whether it could be unloaded at that volume and sustained at that price?鈥� Enrile asked David.
鈥淵ou would eventually get it back in those terms,鈥� David assured the Senate President.
鈥淭he price of shares that time is not according to what it is. Come on, you may be a good banker but I can crack your head,鈥� Enrile said.
Senator Sergio Osme帽a III, chairman of the Senate committee on banks, likened Ongpin鈥檚 justification to a car thief who returned the vehicle he stole once the owner complained.
鈥淒oes that mean there was no crime?鈥� Osme帽a asked in an ambush interview after the hearing of the Senate blue ribbon and banks committees.
$90-M loan to GAS
The senator noted that apart from the loan extended to DVRI, the DBP during David鈥檚 time also granted a $90-million loan to Global Air Services (GAS), which is based in the British Virgin Islands.
While Ongpin鈥檚 direct involvement with GAS cannot be established, Osme帽a said DVRI president Josephine Manalo and a certain Attorney Ponferrado, who both have links to Ongpin, were signatories to the loan.
鈥淎lso, there is another corporation linked to GAS鈥擜storia Investment Ventures Inc.鈥攖hat has four people also linked to Ongpin,鈥� Osme帽a added.
鈥淚f GAS is not licensed to do business in the Philippines, why would the DBP let it borrow $90 million. It also got another $90-million loan from Land Bank of the Philippines, so its president Gilda Pico can also be liable for plunder,鈥� the senator said.
Ongpin twitted charges that DBP suffered from 鈥渙pportunity trading loss鈥� after DVRI purchased its Philex shares and sold these to Pangilinan at a much higher price.
Ongpin鈥檚 critics claimed DBP suffered a P400-million loss because of this transaction.
鈥淭his allegation is simply absurd. It is obviously based on hindsight,鈥� the businessman said, repeating an explanation he made to Inquirer a month ago.
Ongpin said that when DBP officials sold him the bank鈥檚 Philex shares for P12.75 each, they 鈥渟imply wanted to lock in their profits, having bought the shares at an average cost of P5.7 per share, thus being able to sell at more than 2.5 times the cost.鈥�
Ongpin also debunked allegations of insider trading.
鈥淭he fact that the sellers, myself and (former) DBP president Rey David and the buyer, Mr. Pangilinan, were all on the board of Philex can never be a basis for the allegation鈥︹�� he said. With Maila Ager, 黑料社
Originally posted: 10:59 am | Monday, November 14th, 2011