Earlier, I wrote an article alleging that some prominent Catholic Priests are included in the list of Janet Lim-Napoles witnesses. Napoles is being accused of masterminding the diversion of about PhP 10 Billion worth of state funds to bogus non-government organizations (NGOs) and ghost projects.
However, it appears that one of the priests mentioned in that article, Monsignor Josefino S. Ramirez, is not just an ordinary witness but a tenant of Napoles's sprawling property in a plush subdivision in Makati City.
Based on the documents obtained by Rappler.com, Monsignor Ramirez, a retired priest, will be paying a monthly fee of PhP 280,000 for a house located at 9 Narra Avenue, South Forbes, Makati City. The document says it is a two-year contract which started on 15 January 2013 until 15 January 2015.
The relationship between Napoles and Monsignor Ramirez does not end there. According to Rappler.com, aside from the 4,000-square-meter Forbes residence, Ramirez's office is located at 52 Lapu-Lapu St, Magallanes Village, Makati City, a home that allegedly also belongs to Napoles.
The document was supported by a witness claim that identifies Monsignor Ramirez as one of the priests who have benefitted from the wealth of Napoles through allowances and housing.
At this time, the 66-year-old priests declined several requests for interviews, but the funny thing is that several of his supporters tried to defend him using the most absurd argument we have ever heard. Check this statement, for instance, from a so-called opinion writer we never heard of before:
Let us enlighten Monsignor Ramirez's defender by saying that first off if there is a check written in the name of the good priests and it involves a good amount of money, then it is his responsibility to find out where it came from. Also, comparing a huge amount of donated money to the coins collected during Sunday’s mass is illogical. I don’t know where you got this idea that you can lump the two together and call both orange and apple a banana, but they are totally different in many aspects. Nice try, but the logic is not there.
Here’s another one:
This next one totally tops all the other justification of Monsignor Ramirez’s involvement in the scam:
However, it appears that one of the priests mentioned in that article, Monsignor Josefino S. Ramirez, is not just an ordinary witness but a tenant of Napoles's sprawling property in a plush subdivision in Makati City.
Based on the documents obtained by Rappler.com, Monsignor Ramirez, a retired priest, will be paying a monthly fee of PhP 280,000 for a house located at 9 Narra Avenue, South Forbes, Makati City. The document says it is a two-year contract which started on 15 January 2013 until 15 January 2015.
The relationship between Napoles and Monsignor Ramirez does not end there. According to Rappler.com, aside from the 4,000-square-meter Forbes residence, Ramirez's office is located at 52 Lapu-Lapu St, Magallanes Village, Makati City, a home that allegedly also belongs to Napoles.
The document was supported by a witness claim that identifies Monsignor Ramirez as one of the priests who have benefitted from the wealth of Napoles through allowances and housing.
At this time, the 66-year-old priests declined several requests for interviews, but the funny thing is that several of his supporters tried to defend him using the most absurd argument we have ever heard. Check this statement, for instance, from a so-called opinion writer we never heard of before:
At isa pa, hindi naman alam ni Ramirez kung saan galing ang pera ni Napoles. Ang sabi broker at supplier siya. Parang kontribusyon ng mga tao sa Misa tuwing Linggo … tinatanong pa ba ng pari kung saan galing ang linagay natin sa collection plate?This is the best defense that they can come up with? No wonder many Catholics prefer to convert to other practical religions.
Let us enlighten Monsignor Ramirez's defender by saying that first off if there is a check written in the name of the good priests and it involves a good amount of money, then it is his responsibility to find out where it came from. Also, comparing a huge amount of donated money to the coins collected during Sunday’s mass is illogical. I don’t know where you got this idea that you can lump the two together and call both orange and apple a banana, but they are totally different in many aspects. Nice try, but the logic is not there.
Here’s another one:
Bilang dating Vicar General ni Cardinal Sin na may track record na successful projects, madalas binibigyan si Ramirez ng mga assignment ng Cardinal. Malapit kasi si Ramirez sa Chinese community. Mataas ang respeto nila kay Ramirez at alam nilang walang nasasayang sa binibigay nilang donasyon.This is totally off the grid. Praising Monsignor Ramirez's work and contribution to society does not diminish the possibility that he is one of the illegal and immoral beneficiaries of the taxpayer's hard-earned money. So what if he earned the respect of the Chinese Community, which I doubt. Is this enough reason not to question his integrity or how he was able to earn more than PhP 280,000 to afford the rental payment of a high-priced mansion.
This next one totally tops all the other justification of Monsignor Ramirez’s involvement in the scam:
"Natural bawat proyekto ay nangangailangan ng pondo. Saan niya kukunin yon? Ang Chinese community ang sumusuporta kay Ramirez."If we follow this line of thinking, what he is saying is that as long as the money continually flows and this is being used for Monsignor Ramirez’s pastoral projects, then it is not important where it came from. If somebody kills another person, steals his money and donate it to Monsinor Ramirez, the good priest will welcome it with hugs and kisses. Nice.