{"id":13794,"date":"2014-06-05T17:37:46","date_gmt":"2014-06-05T09:37:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=13794"},"modified":"2014-06-05T17:37:46","modified_gmt":"2014-06-05T09:37:46","slug":"ombudsman-junks-mrs-of-enrile-estrada-revilla","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2014\/06\/05\/ombudsman-junks-mrs-of-enrile-estrada-revilla\/","title":{"rendered":"Ombudsman junks MRs of Enrile, Estrada, Revilla"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"color: #000000;\">\n<figure id=\"attachment_13795\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-13795\" style=\"width: 200px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/FvfOmbudsman0222_17.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-13795\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/FvfOmbudsman0222_17.jpg\" alt=\"Office of the Ombudsman \/ Wikipedia Photo\" width=\"200\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-13795\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Office of the Ombudsman \/ Wikipedia Photo<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">MANILA &#8212; The Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday denied all the motions for reconsideration (MRs) of the three principal accused in the alleged P10-billion priority development assistance fund (PDAF) scam.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">In its resolution, the Ombudsman said the respondents in the plunder case, namely: Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon &#8220;Bong&#8221; Revilla Jr., and Jose &#8220;Jinggoy&#8221; Estrada failed to convince them (Ombudsman) to dismiss the plunder case against them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">The Ombudsman said the three respondents also failed to raise new arguments to warrant the setting aside and the dismissal of the earlier recommendation of the Ombudsman for the filing of the plunder case against them before the Sandiganbayan.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">Aside from the three senators, the Ombudsman also dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the camp of Janet Lim Napoles, the alleged &#8220;brains&#8221; behind the P10-billion PDAF and the P900-million Malampaya Fund scams.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">On the other hand, the Ombudsman granted an &#8220;extended immunity&#8221; to the whistleblowers in the PDAF and Malampaya Fund scams, namely: Benhur Luy, Merlina Sunas, Arlene Baltazar, Marina Sula and Simonette Briones.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;\">However, the Ombudsman did not approve the application for immunity filed by other witnesses.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA &#8212; The Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday denied all the motions for reconsideration (MRs) of the three principal &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":13795,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95],"tags":[1552,1554,4724,193,1553],"class_list":["post-13794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ph","tag-enrile","tag-estrada","tag-mrs","tag-pnoy","tag-revilla","mauthors-rodora-mendoza","mauthors-victor-cacal","mauthors-philippines-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13794","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13794\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}