Rabusa: I don't know Garcia's protector

By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News

Posted at Feb 11 2011 05:59 PM | Updated as of Feb 12 2011 08:50 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Military slush fund controversy whistleblower and former Armed Forces budget officer, Retired Lt. Col. George Rabusa, filed his supplemental affidavit at the Department of Justice (DOJ) today detailing the extent of his knowledge on alleged corruption in the military.

Rabusa, who went to the DOJ this afternoon to personally subscribe to his supplemental affidavit, however, refused to reveal its contents citing his provisional coverage under the department's Witness Protection Program (WPP), which calls for confidentiality as far as witness testimonies are concerned.

Asked by reporters if he had knowledge of embattled former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia's so-called "protector" and alleged "powerful man behind Garcia," Rabusa said, "Wala akong alam dyan."

Former Armed Forces chief of staff and former Defense chief Angelo Reyes, who recently committed suicide after being implicated in the military corruption issue, told a Senate inquiry recently this "protector" is known to lawmakers and challenged them to name him in public.

Garcia was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan and entered into a controversial plea bargaining agreement with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Comprehensive affidavit

Rabusa's 32-page supplemental affidavit is the "comprehensive, exhaustive affidavit" he promised Justice Secretary Leila de Lima last week.

It was supposed to be filed last February 7.

Rabusa's supplemental affidavit will determine what kind of DOJ panel De Lima will constitute in the justice department's investigation into alleged corruption in the military.

De Lima earlier told reporters the panel will either be a fact-finding panel or a panel which will already conduct a preliminary investigation on the alleged involvement of personalities named by Rabusa in his sworn statements.

Last February 2, Rabusa also personally went to the DOJ to subscribe to a first affidavit which, he said, was still "incomplete" thus the need for the supplemental affidavit executed today.