MANILA, Philippines — Uswag Ilonggo party-list Rep. James “Jojo” Ang Jr. pleaded not guilty to two graft charges before the Sandiganbayan on Tuesday, September 1, as the lawmaker faces a total of 14 counts stemming from alleged conflicts of interest involving government infrastructure contracts.
Ang entered his plea before the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division, which is handling two of the 14 cases filed against him under Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The cases center on allegations that Ang had a direct or indirect financial interest in contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to Allencon Development Corporation.
What are the allegations against Ang?
According to prosecutors, Ang allegedly owned 500 shares in Allencon Development Corp., while the company was awarded government contracts.
Two contracts covered by the cases heard by the Sixth Division were valued at approximately P8.18 million and P16.079 million, respectively.
Prosecutors allege that Ang’s interest in the company violated constitutional restrictions on lawmakers having a financial interest in government contracts. Article VI, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution prohibits members of Congress from being financially interested in contracts with, or franchises and special privileges granted by, the government.
The allegations do not mean Ang has been found guilty. His not-guilty plea means the criminal proceedings will continue and the prosecution must still prove the charges in court.
Why the case reached the Sandiganbayan
The jurisdiction of the anti-graft court has already become a major issue in Ang’s legal battle.
In August, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division rejected Ang’s attempt to have one of the graft cases dismissed. His lawyers had argued, among other things, that the case should fall under the jurisdiction of a Regional Trial Court because the information did not specify a quantifiable amount of damage to the government.
The Sandiganbayan disagreed, ruling that the alleged violation involved an unquantifiable form of damage arising from the alleged prohibited financial interest and violation of public policy.
The court also rejected Ang’s request to consolidate all 14 cases into a single division, noting that although the cases stem from the same Ombudsman resolution, they involve separate and distinct government projects.
The 14 cases involve bigger contracts
The current proceedings are part of a much larger case against Ang.
The Office of the Ombudsman previously filed 14 graft counts against the lawmaker, alleging that he maintained a stake in a construction company while serving in Congress.
GMA News reported that the construction firms linked to the allegations were awarded a combined P214 million in DPWH contracts, with nearly P199 million reportedly paid for the projects.
The charges were brought under provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act concerning prohibited financial interests by public officials.
Arrest warrant had already been issued
The case has already taken several significant turns.
On July 27, the Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest against Ang after finding probable cause to proceed with the graft cases. The court also issued a hold-departure order against him.
Ang subsequently posted bail in connection with the cases.
His legal team has repeatedly challenged the proceedings, including the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction and the decision to handle the 14 charges separately.
What happens next?
Following Tuesday’s arraignment, the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division scheduled a preliminary conference for September 7 and the pretrial proper for September 8.
The prosecution and defense are therefore moving toward the next stage of the proceedings, where the issues, evidence and witnesses to be presented during trial will be further defined.
For now, Ang remains presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But with 14 graft cases still pending, the September proceedings could become another crucial chapter in the continuing investigation into alleged conflicts of interest involving lawmakers and government infrastructure contracts.
Leave a Reply