Harry Roque and Vic Agustin exchanges

Following are two columns, Cocktail Perks at BSP by lawyer Harry Roque and P200,000 to attack Tetangco by journalist Vic Agustin of Manila Standard.

Harry Roque is being criticized for charging Bancco Filipino, who recently was taken over by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for alleged insolvency, P1.28 lawyers fee plus other fees. What’s wrong with a lawyer charging clients fees for services rendered?

I personally know that Atty. Roque is doing a lot of pro bono cases.

Here’s Roque’s column answering Agustin’s criticism against him. Agustin’s column is also reproduced in this post

Cocktail Perks at BSP

By Harry Roque

Cocktales writer Victor Agustin tried to malign my law firm in his column last Monday. No effort at all was made to hear the other side, my side, which genuine journalists always do to differentiate themselves from paid hacks.

In past press releases, the BSP falsely linked me to a supposed P245 million payment made by Banco Filipino (BF) for legal services. In his smear column, however, Agustin unconsciously exposed BSP’s malice because, all along, it turns out that the BSP had records showing that my firm merely got paid one-half of 1% of the alleged P245 million amount. In fact, with P400,000 in still unpaid legal fees, my firm is a victim of the BF closure.

A few lawyer-friends say that if there is any embarrassing disclosure Agustin made, it is that I come comparatively cheap. I challenge Agustin to disprove my friends by equally disclosing the total payments made to the private law firm retained by BSP to act in its defense. Since Agustin has unlimited access to confidential bank records, let him produce the itemized work done and the number of lawyer-hours paid to the BSP-retained law firm. His readers are certainly excited to see who has been paid hundreds of millions of pesos. Agustin’s non-disclosure of the comparative total figures paid to the BSP law firm will only strengthen loud suspicions that the BSP paid eye popping figures not for general patronage.

The reason I agreed to represent BF was because of my honest assessment that it is a victim of injustice. BF was first closed by the BSP under the Marcos regime. The Supreme Court declared the bank closure illegal and ordered the BSP to rehabilitate BF. BF sued BSP in a damage suit for the illegal closure. The BSP attempted to force BF to waive its damage claims in unlawful exchange for the grant of rehabilitation. It was a completely criminal precondition being imposed by the Tetangco-led BSP, so I was engaged to file criminal cases.

Agustin finds much wrong with the P200,000 requested for full page ads that were desperately needed by BF which was fighting to stave off a bank run caused by smear media campaign that Agustin himself actively fuelled. The budget was disapproved and not paid by the BSP-appointed Comptroller, and the ads did not see print, proof that BF could not have been mismanaged because of the comptrollership.

Agustin should instead train his eyes on the P10 BILLION salaries paid by the Tetangco-led BSP in 2008-2009; jaw-dropping in comparison to the P1.9 billion salaries of the gargantuan Department of Justice, the P2.2 billion salaries of the DILG, and the P672 million salaries of the Court of Appeals.

For the same period, the Tetangco-led BSP incurred P543 Million in travelling expenses, P181 Million for consultants, P1.2 Billion for “post-retirement benefits,” and P832 Million in unspecified expenses. How much of this cocktail of perks went to the Tetangco-led BSP Lords during this mere two years of their six years tenure? How much went to paid hacks who render attack and defend services for the BSP against its adversaries, and then collect fees from the BSP?

Agustin also takes me to task for working to earn my keep by taking in paying clients. He insinuates that I should only work full time and completely pro bono on human rights cases. Early on in my career I made a decision that I shall equally perform my obligation to provide for the needs of my family and my obligation to do pro bono work for our less fortunate and oppressed countrymen.

I take pride in my small achievement of being able to maintain a small law firm that provides income to 21 families while at the same time handling pro bono the most difficult and most dangerous human rights and corruption cases. In fact, the ratio now of my law firm’s portfolio is 70% pro bono and 30% paying clients. My 30% paying clients virtually subsidize my 70% pro bono cases.

In Agustin’s world view, I should ditch even my 30% paying clients, entirely devote myself to pro bono cases, and force the 21 families relying on my small firm na magdildil na lang ng asin. In Agustin’s world view, human rights advocates must lead lives of penury. Cocktales writers and BSP Lords must lead, well, cocktail party lives.

**************************************************************

P200,000 to attack Tetangco

By Vic Agustin

It used to be that activists took to the streets out of passion and ideological conviction.
Nowadays, there’s apparently a hefty monetary incentive as well.

For “activist lawyer” and human rights advocate Harry Roque Jr., the incentive to vilify Bangko Sentral Governor Amando Tetangco Jr.—whom he described as a loyalist of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo “able to subvert the reform agenda” of P.Noy—amounted to P200,000, and counting.

According to a copy of Roque’s statement of account now in the hands of government auditors, the UP professor charged Banco Filipino P200,000 for “media-related services” against Tetangco sometime in February.

That P200,000 is separate from the P1.28 million Roque and his partner Joel Butuyan received from the Ponzi-scheming bank in 2010 for suing the central bank.

Even such patriotic act as filing a case against public officials before the Ombudsman now also needs a monetary inducement.

Roger Rayel, a Roque associate, charged six hours of work in going to the Ombudsman’s office in Diliman and filing a complaint, for which Roque billed the already hemorrhaging Banco Filipino P24,000.

Why it took all six hours, more than half a working day, to deliver and have a complaint marked received is not immediately clear.

Incidentally, while Roque tacked on 12-percent VAT to the cost of legal services his law firm had rendered Banco Filipino, there was no VAT added on the P200,000-attack Tetangco fee.