Sandiganbayan issues HDO vs. Misuari, 7 others

By on June 6, 2017


Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founding chair Nur Misuari. (ALBERT ALCAIN/ Presidential Photo)
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founding chair Nur Misuari. (ALBERT ALCAIN/ Presidential Photo)

MANILA¬†— The Sandiganbayan has issued a hold departure order (HDO) against former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) governor and Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founding chair Nur Misuari in connection with the charges over the alleged anomalous procurement of educational materials worth PHP115.2 million from 2000 to 2001.

In six separate orders, the Sandiganbayan Third Division directed the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to hold the departure of Misuari and seven of his co-accused “to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its (court’s) jurisdiction over the case/s and the person/s of the accused so as to render accused at all times amenable to its writs and processes.”

Aside from Misuari, the HDO was also issued against then Department of Education (DepEd) ARMM director Leovigilda Cinches, chief accountant Pangalian Maniri, Sittie Aisa Usman, DepEd ARMM accountant Alladin Usi, Commissioner on Audit ARMM resident auditor Nader Macagaan, and private individuals Cristeta Ramirez and Lolita Sambeli.

Misuari was charged with three counts each of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”, and malversation through falsification for allegedly conspiring with his co-accused in giving “unwarranted benefits, advantage and privilege” to the following companies for the procurement of educational materials:

— MBJ Learning Tools for an Information Technology package worth PHP31 million;

— CPR Publishing for a Multi-media Information Technology package worth PHP46.26 million; and

— White Orchids Printing and Publishing House for educational materials worth PHP37.59 million.

This, even though “no such materials were delivered,” the Ombudsman said.

The Ombudsman also alleged that the respondents conspired with one another to “take, appropriate or misappropriate” the said amounts by supposedly falsifying the corresponding procurement documents for the educational materials.

It added that this was in order to make it appear that the procurements were made.