Reply of Nene Pimentel to charges on alleged misuse of Franking Privilege

MALICE, IGNORANCE OF LAW & FACTS
CAUSED BASELESS CHARGE

[Reply of Nene Pimentel to charges on alleged misuse
of Franking Privilege, Senate, Pasay City, April 2,
2007]

The complainant is absolutely wrong. He is acting out
of malice and of ignorance of the law and facts. But
first, let us discuss his

Ignorance of law and facts

Fact 1. I do not mail letters – official or personal -
from my office. Neither does my son, Aquilino Pimentel
III, have anything to do with mailing any kind of
letters from my office.

Fact 2. In my office, letters are mailed under the
authority of a director in my office that is under
instruction that my franking privilege should be used
only in accordance with law.

Fact 3. Before letters are mailed, the law requires
that a responsible person should certify that the
letters fall within the coverage of the franking
privilege law. In my office, that person is the
director in charge of mailing.

Fact 4. When I first heard that some letters were
mailed under my franking privilege that could be
misconstrued as a misuse of it, I immediately had a
fast investigation conducted.

The results were:

(1) The director in my office in charge of, among
other things, mailing matters, used his own discretion
of mailing the questioned letters under my franking
privilege.

(2) A non-lawyer, he believed that the contents of the
questioned letters were not purely partisan or
political. In fact, parts of the letters stressed the
need to prevent dagdag/bawas, the need to safeguard
the integrity of the election process, the need to
uphold the Rule of Law. These are matters that are
essential to the maintenance of clean elections and
are fundamental to good governance; things that I, as
a senator, consider it a part of my duty to share with
my constituents.

(3) Being a decent man, and realizing that the matter
could be misconstrued as a violation of the franking
privilege law and used as an electoral campaign issue
by my political opponents, the director resigned and I
accepted the resignation.

Fact 5. The postage stamps fees were duly paid upon my
orders [Acknowledgement Receipt] March 26, 2007.

It is, thus, clear that neither I nor my son committed
any corruption here or violation of any law.

Malice

What is clear here is that the complainant acting out
of base motives is trying hard to charge me and my son
with a crime that is not borne out of the facts in a
vile attempt to discredit me and my son.

The complainant who used to work with me resents and
has vowed to bring me down politically for the reason,
among other things, that I did not back him up as a
candidate for mayor of Cagayan de Oro city in the 2004
elections.

He is also the lawyer of Virgilio Garcillano of the
Hello Garci fame, who I would like to see punished in
accordance with law and who he is trying to save by
any means from the latter's complicity in the massive
electoral fraud committed in the 2004 elections.

Conclusion

The charges are absolutely without merit and must
necessarily fall because:

1. Without knowing the facts, the complainant
recklessly charges me – and drags my son in the
process - for the alleged misuse of the franking
privilege of my office; and

2. He is motivated by malice in his desire to hit back
at me for my not backing up him up his disastrous bid
for mayor of Cagayan de Oro in the elections of 2004
and for my persistent calls for the incarceration of
his client, Virgilio Garcillano, who he wants to save
at all costs.