DOJ Resolution on the Amanah Islamic

Document Sample
DOJ Resolution on the Amanah Islamic Powered By Docstoc
					                    DOJ RESOLUTION
                       on the case of
                    Amanah Islamic Bank




                  By Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
         Chancellor, Islamic Banking Research Institute
                      Founding Chairman
              Amanah Islamic Bank (1992-1998)



      This article is based on the results of the investigation of the
      Department of Justice on a complaint that it received docketed as
      I.S. No. 99-1806. As the I.S. number indicates, this pertains to a
      complaint in 1999, eleven years ago.
      The complaint was filed by certain former lawyers of the Bangko
      Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), Atty. Rolando A.Q Agustin and Atty.
      Rosalina P Ojascastro as allegedly representing the Monetary
      Board. The filing of the complaint was based on the original
      complaint by Farouk Carpizo.

      The BSP lawyers just did their job upon receipt of an original
      complaint that was maliciously filed with the Central Bank by
      Carpizo. Upon my research, I found that the lawyers of the
      Bangko Sentral filed the case wrongfully. They filed the case in
      the name of the Monetary Board but without the consent of the
      latter. They had no authority to represent the Bangko Sentral ng
      Pilipinas on legal matters. Under Section 18, par (c) of the new


In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                 Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
      Central Bank Act, R, A. 7653, it is the Governor of the Bangko
      Sentral ng Pilipinas who is authorized to represent the Bangko
      Sentral in any legal proceedings, action or specialized legal
      studies.

      On their affidavits, the BSP lawyers had to confess that they were
      not authorized by the Monetary Board. They were only acting on
      their own. That was a fatal mistake because they misrepresented
      the Monetary Board and the Bangko Sentral. Not having been
      authorized, the case cannot bind the Monetary Board and the
      Bangko Sentral.




      The Islamic Banking Research Institute of which I am the
      chairman has complete files related to the investigations of the
      Department of Justice on this case. The Institute is being updated
      by the incumbent chairman of the Amanah Islamic Bank, Mr.
      Grande M. Dianaton, original stockholder of the old Philippine
      Amanah Bank and one of the founding stockholders of the Al
      Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines.




      Seven years after we had formally organized the Islamic Bank in
      accordance with its charter, R.A. 6848, the Supervision and
      Examination Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
      (BSP) was misinformed by one Engr. Farouk Carpizo. Sometime
      in 1999, he represented himself to the BSP as a government
      representative. In truth, as the records show he was president of
      the old abolished Philippine Amanah Bank (PAB) – not the new
      Al Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines. He
      claimed that the Islamic Bank is a government bank of which he is
      the president, representing the government. Based on hearsay, the
      BSP lawyers filed a formal complaint allegedly in the name of the
      Monetary Board against some directors and officers of the
      original Islamic Bank. Bad publicity in the press and the Internet

In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                 Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
      was made, and investigation was conducted by the Department of
      Justice. What a waste of time! All the charges were maliciously
      manufactured. These false charges are the ones that are being
      posted on the Internet.


      Going back to the case, the following surfaced upon investigation:

      1. Owing to its fiscal crisis that closely approaches the Nicaraguan
      syndrome, the Philippine government has never subscribed to the
      capital stock of the new Amanah Islamic Bank up to the time the
      casewas filed.

      2. The two BSP lawyers who filed the case had to confess upon
      investigation that they had no authority to file the case from the
      Monetary Board. That was an act of misrepresentation.

      3. The two BSP lawyers did not know also that there was already
      an earlier Resolution by the Honorable Supreme Court of the
      Philippines on the same case complained about.


      In summary the complaint was based on hearsay that was loaded
      with errors and falsity.

      This story is not a fiction. The statements are facts of a malicious
      and baseless complaint (Department of Justice, I.S. No. 99-1806)
      filed by two misinformed BSP lawyers against innocent officers of
      the new Amanah Islamic Bank. They not only misrepresented the
      Monetary Board but they also misrepresented the Office of the
      President of the Philippines. And worst, they are misleading the
      general public.


      The following are the facts that were considered by the
      Department of Justice (DOJ) in its Resolution on the complaint of
      the Central Bank

      BEGIN QUOTING THE DOJ RESOLUTION.




In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                  Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
      The respondents, “as summarized, jointly alleges that the
      complaint-affidavit of the BSP against the respondents for
      violation of Section 6 of RA 337 in relation to Section 36 of RA
      7653, has no basis in fact and in law, based on the following: a)
      that we are all stockholders and organic directors and officers of
      the Islamic Bank, a corporation created by RA 6848, and duly
      organized by most of us with present business development
      address at No. 3, Block 11, Marawi Avenue, Maharlika Village,
      Taguig, Metro Manila; b) that respondents Mangompia, Badio,
      Pangcoga, and Rasuman, were among those present as organizers
      in the organizational shareholders meeting of the Islamic Bank on
      April 28, 1992 at the Army and Navy Club, Manila, of which the
      original and authentic Islamic Bank was officially organized in
      the manner prescribed by law under R.A. 6848; c) that their
      decision to subscribe to Series “B” shares and Series “C” shares
      in the capital of the Islamic Bank was based on their knowledge of
      this legal processes which was sanctioned by the confirmation
      letter of the SEC which issued a confirmation letter, dated July
      29, 1993, that the Islamic Bank is deemed registered and
      authorized to operate as of the date of approval of RA 6848, and
      this was further boosted by another confirmation letter, dated
      September 8, 1993, that the Islamic Bank is exempted from the
      Revised Securities Act; d) that the legality of their being
      stockholders of the Islamic Bank is even supported by the Hon.
      Court of Appeals in its Decision on Civil Case No. CA GR No.
      28445 entitled Abdel Aziz Dimapunong v. Hon. Zosimo Z. Angeles
      where on page 6, par. 2 the Hon. Court states that “ there is no
      question that the other petitioners, Abbas, Dianaton, and
      Malambut, are stockholders of the bank”. Abbas and Malambut
      were among their predecessor directors while Dianaton is still a
      director; e) that the legality of their being stockholders of the
      Islamic Bank is also supported by the Office of the Solicitor
      General in its Motion and Manifestation dated September 22,
      1992; f) that a careful reading of the complaint of the Monetary
      Board clearly shows that it is a recycled complaint, the original
      “Complaint For Injunction with Damages” having been filed by
      then Finance Secretary Roberto De Ocampo and Farouk Carpizo.
      This is the same complaint by the BSP officials in the instant case;
      g) that the complaint alleges without basis that “the legitimate
      government owned Islamic Bank, which is duly recognized by the

In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                  Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
      Bangko Sentral, is the Al Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the
      Philippines (AIIBP) which was created and existing pursuant to
      the provisions of R.A. 6848, and the majority shares of which are
      held by the National Government, Social Security System (SSS),
      Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Development
      Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and the Asset Privatization Trust
      (APT)” In response, we state that this is totally wrong because the
      shareholdings of the National Government, SSS, GSIS, DBP, and
      APT refers to their shareholdings in the abolished Philippine
      Amanah Bank (PAB). These government shareholdings have long
      been totally worthless because of the total bankruptcy and
      insolvency of the Philippine Amanah Bank which is now being
      resurrected by the BSP by usurping the name of our Islamic
      Bank; h) that the complaint states that certain persons were
      “nominated by the president of the Philippines and elected in the
      alleged general shareholders meeting held on June 30, 1999. This
      is not true, the President of the Philippines did not nominate
      anyone but in his letter of June 22, 1999, he wrote to DBP
      Chairman Ramoncito Z. Abad (not to the chairman of the Islamic
      Bank) expressing ONLY A DESIRE – not a nomination; i) that
      the complainant should be educated about the charter of the
      Islamic Bank to discover that we do not have to be under the
      supervision of the BSP because the Islamic Bank is not just a bank
      as defined under the General Banking Act but also an
      INVESTMENT HOUSE”. Should it operate as an investment
      house, the Islamic Bank is under the supervision of the SEC; j) it
      must also be noted that the charter provides them exemption from
      the provisions of the General Banking Act and Central Bank Act.
      The charter provides the following exemption: “SEC. 39. Non-
      Applicability of Selected Acts. – In order to achieve the
      international and domestic objectives of Islamic banking business,
      the provisions of the following acts and laws shall not apply to the
      Islamic Bank to the extent as herein rendered inoperative: “(1)
      The provisions of the Central Bank Act and the General Banking
      Act with particular reference to the determination of bank
      interest rates, loans and discounts, and any interest-bearing
      instruments or charge: provided that nothing contained herein
      shall be construed to impair the powers of the Central Bank to
      supervise and regulate the activities of the Islamic Bank.”; k) that
      the undersigned respondents also question the capacities of

In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                  Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
      Rolando A.Q Agustin and Rosalina P Ojascastro as representing
      the Monetary Board in the instant legal action. Under Section 18,
      par (c) of the new Central Bank Act, R, A. 7653, it is the Governor
      of the BSP who is authorized to represent the BSP in any legal
      proceedings, action or specialized legal studies; r) Finally, it must
      be noted that in supervising the Islamic Bank, the Monetary
      Board shall supervise it in accordance with the Sharia’ Law (Sec.
      43, R.A. 6848)
      [Pages 7, 8, 9, and 10, DOJ Resolution, on I.S. No. 99-1806, dated
      February 6, 2001, Manila, Philippines]


      UNQUOTE THE DOJ RESOLUTION




            The organizational meeting at the Army and Navy Club of Manila
                         With Grande Dianaton, April 28, 1992




            The 1999 International stockholders meeting at Richmond Hotel
                            With Ashroff Gaffoor (center)




In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                      Abdel Aziz Dimapunong
      What happens next?

      The malicious complaint did not progress. The lawyers were not
      authorized by the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral. They
      confessed to have acted on their own – not the Central Bank.

      How do I see the case? Well, it was a DAC, Dead on Arrival at Court.




In defense of Gaffoor and Dianaton                   Abdel Aziz Dimapunong

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:70
posted:4/12/2010
language:Malay
pages:7
Description: DOJ Resolution on the Amanah Islamic...