Businessman Roberto Ongpin cried foul over what he described as the “cruel and unusual punishment” imposed against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly committing insider trading.
Ongpin in a statement released over the weekend said the SEC decision ordering him to resign from all listed companies would force him to go out of business and terminate his career.
Ongpin currently sits as chairman of two listed companies—PhilWeb Corp. and Atok Big Wedge Inc.
He said the SEC’s decision to charge him with the maximum penalty of P174 million, or P1 million for every 174 counts of insider trading involving shares of Philex Mining Corp. in 2009, was “unconscionable” and stressed the clear bias of the SEC against him.
Ongpin also called the SEC ruling as erroneous and grossly unfair.
“I thought that the persecution under the Aquino administration had ended but apparently, the remaining minions of the past administration are still determined to get me,” Ongpin said.
The SEC in a order dated July 8 ordered Ongpin out of all board of publicly listed company and to pay a fine of P174 million.
Ongpin said he had instructed his lawyers to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals.
Ongpin’s legal counsel on Friday said the SEC’s investigation referred to the same case that filed at the Sandiganbayan by the Ombudsman several years ago. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case twice for lack of probable cause.
Ongpin claimed that the SEC converted the charge into an insider trading case. He said there was no evidence of insider trading, after he simply negotiated a price with businessman Manuel Pangilinan on straightforward commercial transaction and that it was never based on any insider information.
“The jurisprudence is clear, there was no insider trading at all,” Ongpin said.
Ongpin cited the case was filed almost a full year after the two-year deadline imposed by the Securities and Regulations Code.
he SEC said the decision to impose the maximum penalty would quell if not totally eliminate insider trading and other fraudulent manipulative devices and practices that created distortions in the free market.
It said a minimum penalty would send the wrong signal to the public that administrative penalties were not sufficient to stop fraudulent market activities.
