Mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog was slapped with a criminal and administrative complaint for unexplained wealth, dishonesty, perjury and grave misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman last Friday.

In his complaint-affidavit, journalist Manuel Mejorada noted a sharp increase in Mabilog’s net worth by P26,652,168.30 based on his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) filed in 2007 and 2010.

According to Mejorada, the respondent reported in his SALN for the year ending Dec. 31, 2010 that his annual gross income was P564,743; annual gross family income was P8,400,000; real properties and vehicles were worth P43,346,600.30; investments, other personal properties and liabilities worth P27.760 million and no liabilities, making his net worth P71,106,600.30.

He compared it with Mabilog’s SALN as of Dec. 31, 2007 which shows that the respondents’ total real properties were worth P44,910,376; total personal and other properties, including vehicles were worth P22,256,224; total liabilities were at P22,712,168, making his net worth P44,454,432. This comparison shows an increase of P26,652,168.30 from 2007 to 2010.

Copies of these SALNs were attached to the complaint-affidavit Mejorada filed.

“This upsurge in net worth definitely falls under the definition of unexplained wealth under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019,” Mejorada stated.

Mejorada stated that the increase in Mabilog’s net worth is out of proportion to his salary as mayor, vice mayor in 2008 and 2009 and his other legitimate income. He added that even the annual gross family income, which is P8.400 million as declared in his 2010 SALN, is inadequate to push his wealth to P26,652,168.

“Even if respondent was not assessed and paid income taxes, and scrimped on living expenses without spending a single centavo of his gross annual family income for three years, he would have raised only P25.200 million to go on a buying spree of more properties and acquire more wealth. But that is not possible, as he would be prosecuted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for tax evasion. Neither could he keep himself and his family starving just for the sake of amassing wealth. If personal income taxes are deducted from this gross family income (assuming it to be 40 percent of the total), then an amount of P3.200 million more or less, will be taken away from his total income. Granting that his living expenses in Iloilo and that of his wife who is based in Canada would be P200,000 a month (considering their status and lifestyle), then that will reduce his total yearly income by approximately P2.400 million. With these conservative estimates of deductions for taxes and living expenses, respondent will have only P2.800 million more or less as being available for additional investments and property acquisitions. Assuming this to be the level of his net income for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010, respondent could only acquire properties in the vicinity of P9 to P10 million. Where did he get P16 million on top of the available money for investments? Such increase in his net worth is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and business income and that of his wife, and in the contemplation of Section 8, RA 3019, is prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth,” Mejorada stated.

DISHONESTY

The complainant stated that by Mabilog’s disclosure of the required information about his assets, liabilities and net worth in compliance with Section 7 of RA 3019 and Section 1, Rule VII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 6713, the latter deliberately made false entries about the acquisition costs of several pieces of property, both real and personal, to hide the true magnitude of his unexplained wealth.

“In his 2010 SALN, respondent listed a residential property situated in Canada and reported the amount of P14.5 million as its acquisition cost at the time of its purchase in 2007. This information is false, because the same property had been previously reported in respondent’s SALN for 2007, with acquisition cost to be P30 million. By changing the acquisition cost to a lower amount, respondent made it appear that his real properties and vehicles owned during the year 2010 was only P43,346,600. Respondent also listed a Lexus luxury vehicle among his assets for the year 2010, but did not disclose the year it was purchased. This Lexus luxury vehicle did not appear in respondent’s 2007 SALN, hence, it was most likely purchased at some point between 2008 and 2010. The respondent declared the acquisition cost for the Lexus vehicle at P1.500 million. The amount is grossly understated, because the price range of this luxury vehicle is between two to four million pesos, depending on the model. Again, the motive for this understatement of the acquisition cost is to hide the true magnitude of his fast-growing wealth. In the same 2010 SALN, respondent listed a Dodge Durango vehicle and reported the amount of P600,000 as the acquisition cost. The respondent, in gross contravention of the law, also did not indicate the year it was acquired. This vehicle was not included in his 2007 SALN, hence, it can be assumed it was purchased between 2008 and 2010; Respondent understated the acquisition cost of the vehicle, because the market price of this vehicle/model is at minimum of two million pesos. The respondent obviously wanted to disguise the true value of his assets in understating the real acquisition cost of the Dodge Durango.

Further, “Respondent reported in his 2010 SALN a residential property situated in La Paz, Iloilo City with an acquisition cost of five million pesos and placed the year it was purchased as the year 2000. This property was not disclosed in respondent’s SALN for the years 2004, 2005 and the year 2007.” Copies of these documents were also furnished the Office of the Ombudsman.

Mejorada stated that it is unlikely that the respondent acquired the property in La Paz, Iloilo City in 2000 as indicated in his SALN for 2010. “Respondent must have provided a wrong date to make it appear it had been in his SALNs for previous years and hide the fact that it is one of his recent acquisitions. The act constitutes dishonesty,” Mejorada stated.

He added that even if the property had been in the respondent’s name since 2000, then he is held liable for failure to disclose material information, which also constitutes dishonesty.

The complainant also noted that while Mabilog disclosed the value of his jewelries and cash as P10 million in 2007, he did not do so in 2010.

“This failure to report/disclose his jewelries/cash in bank, an item that consistently appeared in his previous years’ SALNs in the amount of P3.300 million is a deliberate act to hide the true worth of his wealth, which has already shot up manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other legitimate income,” Mejorada claimed.

He added that such misdeclarations and understatements of values hid the true net worth of Mabilog, which should have been an additional twenty million pesos to his 2010 SALN on the portion of net worth.

In this regard, Mejorada stated that the respondent is liable for perjury because the SALNS were filed in accordance with law and were sworn to before a competent administering officer.

On top of these, Mejorada stated that Mabilog is liable for violating the mandate of RA 3019 and RA 6713 that dictates public officials to live simply as well as avoid ostentatious display of wealth.

He cited as examples the acquisition of seven numerous luxury vehicles in close proximity to each other based on the various SALNS he filed.

“The Lexus, Dodge Durango, Toyota Camry, Isuzu Altierra and Ford Everest are upscale vehicles that even just one of them would give the owner status as car owner. Having all four of them, and buying these vehicles at the rate of almost one every year since 2007, is lavish spending, rightfully belonging under the lifestyle of the rich, and a sharp departure from the Norm of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees, particularly Section 4, Paragraph (h), of Republic Act No. 6713 on “Simple Living”. Under Section 8, Republic Act No. 3019 mandates that ostentatious display of wealth “shall likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section”, and would, by itself, also constitute grave misconduct,” Mejorada stated.

In this regard, Mejorada urged the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate what he calls transgressions of RA 3019, RA 6713 and other relevant laws on falsification, dishonesty and perjury that may have been incurred by Mabilog.”*