Albert del Rosario: Patriot or Profiteer?

Sass Rogando Sasot

When questioned about his conflict of interest about the Reed Bank, Albert del Rosario said:

I think that’s unfair. I was working for the country. If Manny benefited from that, we’ll benefit from that. It’s not something that will be out of the ordinary.

Albert del Rosario is evading the issue and is not being truthful to the Filipino people. The question isn’t unfair; it’s valid, urgent, and must be throughly investigated. And Dick Cheney was also working for his country when he advocated for the Iraq War. Mainstream media aren’t doing their job. They are not asking the right questions and they aren’t gathering facts.

Albert del Rosario was director of Philex Mining Corporation when its partner Forum Energy Plc was granted by the Philippine government the right to explore oil and gas in Reed Bank in February 2010.

Read on…


  1. manuelbuencamino

    Ahm I see….I wonder if some light can pass through the shade Ms Sasot cast

    (1) Was taking China to court over our EEZ the right or the wrong thing to do?

    (2) If del Rosario was working solely for the Philippines and was not in any way associated with any private entity that would profit from the court’s decision, what would be the grounds for questioning his patriotism?

    (3) “Please convince us that your connection with Philex Mining and First Pacific Company didn’t influence your actions to push our country to having a belligerent relationship with China.”

    That is a serious allegation that she is asking the accused to debunk instead of her proving her allegation. That’s Duterte due process.

    But, at any rate, what is the proper reaction for a country whose EEZ is being exploited by an uninvited foreign country? Should it remain friendly, peaceable, neutral in the face of such an intrusion?

    (4) Del Rosario is not a saint. His motives may not have been as pure as we would hope from ALL who are in public office. But it remains to be proven whether or not he was motivated by profits rather than patriotism.

    At the end of the day, would it have been better if the EEZ issue were not settled legally and in our favor? Would it have been better if it were China or a Chinese company exploiting OUR EEZ?

    (5) There is the decision and then there is the question of conflict of interest. Do not conflate the two.

    First, the area is now our EEZ. So celebrate the decision.

    Second, there may be need to investigate whether or not del Rosario violated any law as a result of “In January 2013, the Inquirer reported that the Department of Energy “deferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs the decision to grant permits concerning the exploration and drilling activities at the highly contested Recto Bank because the area was part of the disputed waters being claimed by China. This effectively gave the authority to grant concessions on Reed Bank to del Rosario! It was also in January 2013 that the Philippines filed the arbitration case against China.” Ask for an investigation, if you think it is needed.

    Don’t help China throw shade on our victory.

  2. GabbyD

    actually, from a pure conflict of interest argument, the article makes no sense

    1) the contract was in 2008(?). who know when the next exploration contract will be, and to whom it would be awarded?

    2) IF its true that First pacific owns it, then its Chinese? would it mean that they would want the philippines to back off?

  3. GabbyD

    my previous comment seems to have been deleted accidentally.

    first, there is a major problem with the premise by the author. there is no evidence on there that the company, mvp or del rosario benefited from any of this; unlike halliburton which has been the recipient of many DoD contracts before AND after the iraq war.

    hence the comparison is incorrect.

    second, to make money from oil, you must get it out first. no oil has been extracted. the result will not result in oil being extracted, either in this political cycle or the next. (this is sure and obvious — either we do it alone, which the rival claimants will reject; or we do it jointly, which local nationalists would reject).