4th Impeachment Complaint vs. BSA

7/21/2019 4th Impeachment Complaint vs. BSA

1/37

1

Congress of the Republic of the PhilippinesHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

House of Representatives ComplexConstitution Hills, Quezon City

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OFBENIGNO S. AQUINO III AS PRESIDENT OF THEREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ACT Teachers Party-List Representative ANTONIO L.

TINIO; National Artist for Literature BIENVENIDOLUMBERA; CYNTHIA N. LUMBERA; Alliance ofConcerned Teachers Philippines Chairperson (ACTPhilippines) BENJAMIN G. VALBUENA, SecretaryGeneral FRANCISCA L. CASTRO, and DeputySecretary General VLADIMER A. QUETUA; QuezonCity Public School Teachers Association (QCPSTA)President DR. PRISCILLA D. AMPUAN; ACT NationalCapital Region-Union Secretary JOSELYN F.

MARTINEZ; Manila Public School TeachersAssociation (MPSTA) President LOUIE L. ZABALA;ACT State Universities and Colleges SpokespersonCLEVE KEVIN ROBERT V. ARGUELLES and LocalUniversities and Colleges Representative VERONICAL. GREGORIO; All-UP Workers Union (AUPWU)Former National President FELIX PARI AS andNational President DR. RAMON GUILLERMO;Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism

and Democracy (CONTEND-UP) Chairperson DR.GERARDO LANUZA; UP Kilos Na Convenor SARAHJANE RAYMUNDO; and AIM Faculty AssociationPresident PROF. EMMANUEL LEYCO,

Complainants.

IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINTAGAINST PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III


2/37

2

PREFATORY

The people have risen up against institutionalized patronage andlegitimized graft and corruption as embodied by the pork barrel system. Their

nationwide rage and activism pushed the Supreme Court (SC) to promulgateBelgica vs. Ochoa 1 and declare as unconstitutional portions of that system, thePriority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or congressional pork and twoforms of presidential pork, for violating the principles for a democratic andtransparent government.

Ruled the High Court, provisions of past and present CongressionalPork Barrel Lawswhich authorize/d legislators whether individually orcollectively organized into committees to intervene, assume or participate in

any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as butnot limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision ofproject identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated to thepower of congressional oversight[and] all informal practices of similar importand effect. 2

The SC has ruled that the practice of dealing pork to lawmakers (1)violates constitutional principles of separation of powers, the non-delegabilityof legislative power, and the presidential veto power; (2) impairs public

accountability; and (3) subverts genuine local autonomy. In other words,congressional pork, however dealt, destroys the foundations of democraticand transparent government and allows the peoples money to be used forpurposes other than their interest.

The Decision embodies the letter and spirit of the law, clear andundeniable to everyone most especially the President, the highest officialduty-bound to implement all laws. This law, in turn, ensures that the interestsof the people are served, through the proper and transparent management

and disbursement of the funds they have entrusted to the government.

In spite of the Decision, and contrary to his pronouncements to thepublic that it is time to abolish PDAF ,3 President Benigno Simeon Aquino IIIhas retained the congressional pork barrel albeit in ways that are hidden inplain sight, an open secret running rampant in agencies directly under hiswatch.

By his perpetuation of informal practices of dealing pork barrel to

members of Congress to the detriment of public interest, President Benigno1 G.R. No. 208566, 19 November 2013. Hereinafter, the Decision.2 The Decision, pages 69-70.3 Pahayag ni Pangulong Aquino ukol sa abolisyon ng PDAF, ika-23 ng Agosto 2013. Available inhttp://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/pahayag-ni-pangulong-aquino-ukol-sa-abolisyon-ng-pdaf-ika-23-ng-agosto-2013/ . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.
http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/pahayag-ni-pangulong-aquino-ukol-sa-abolisyon-ng-pdaf-ika-23-ng-agosto-2013/http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/pahayag-ni-pangulong-aquino-ukol-sa-abolisyon-ng-pdaf-ika-23-ng-agosto-2013/http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/pahayag-ni-pangulong-aquino-ukol-sa-abolisyon-ng-pdaf-ika-23-ng-agosto-2013/http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/pahayag-ni-pangulong-aquino-ukol-sa-abolisyon-ng-pdaf-ika-23-ng-agosto-2013/http://www.gov.ph/2013/08/23/pahayag-ni-pangulong-aquino-ukol-sa-abolisyon-ng-pdaf-ika-23-ng-agosto-2013/


3/37

3

Simeon Aquino III broke his oath of office and betrayed the public trust. By hisblatant violation of the legal prohibition against congressional pork, hedeliberately, gravely, and culpably violated the Constitution. With these acts,he has proven himself unfit and undeserving to continue occupying the seat

entrusted to him by the Filipino people.

THE ACTION

1. This is an impeachment complaint against President Aquino forhis betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution in relationto his blatant violation of the law prohibiting congressional pork barrel laiddown in the Belgica v. Ochoa ruling.

2. Complainants accuse Benigno Simeon Aquino III, President of theRepublic of the Philippines, of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation ofthe Constitution. This Complaint will detail how he, as Chief Executive, has laidin place procedures and practices which allow legislators to exercise post-enactment discretion, intervention, and participation in the use of lump-sumfunds appropriated for a number of national government agencies. In short,he is responsible for perpetuating the prohibited Congressional Pork Barrel.

JURISDICTION

3. This verified impeachment complaint is being filed before theHouse of Representatives, for immediate referral to its Committee on Justicepursuant to its rules and Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 PhilippineConstitution. 4

PARTIES

4. Complainants, all Filipinos and of legal age, are:

a. ACT Teachers Party-List Representative Antonio L. Tinio, amember of the House of Representatives;

b. Bienvenido Lumbera, National Artist for Literature;

c. Cynthia N. Lumbera;

4 Section 2 (a) and (b), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings in the House ofRepresentatives in relation to Section 42, Rule X and Section 28 (aa), Rule IX of the Rules of the House ofRepresentatives and Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Representatives (G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003), whichimplement Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution on the initiation of impeachment complaints.


4/37

4

d. Benjamin G. Valbuena, Chairperson of the Alliance of ConcernedTeachers Philippines;

e. Francisca L. Castro, Secretary General of ACT Philippines;

f. Vladimer A. Quetua, Deputy Secretary General of ACT Philippines;

g. Dr. Priscilla D. Ampuan, President of Quezon City Public SchoolTeachers Association (QCPSTA);

h. Joselyn F. Martinez, Secretary of the ACT National Capital Region-Union;

i. Louie L. Zabala, President of the Manila Public School TeachersAssociation (MPSTA);

j. Cleve Kevin Robert V. Arguelles, Spokesperson of ACT StateUniversities and Colleges;

k. Veronica L. Gregorio, Local Universities and Colleges

Representative of ACT SUCs;

l. Felix Parias, Former National President of All-UP Workers Union(AUPWU);

m. Dr. Ramon Guillermo, National President of AUPWU;

n. Dr. Gerardo Lanuza, Chairperson of Congress of Teachers andEducators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND-UP);

o. Prof. Sarah Jane Raymundo, Convenor of UP Kilos Na; and

p. Prof. Emmanuel Leyco, President of the AIM Faculty Association.

5. Complainants may be served with orders and notices from thisHouse of Representatives through counsel at the address indicated below.

6. Respondent Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III is the incumbentPresident of the Republic of the Philippines. He may be served with a copy ofthis complaint and notices from the House of Representatives at NewExecutive Building, Malacaang Palace Compound, J.P. Laurel Street, SanMiguel, Manila.


5/37

5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. Although discretionary lump sum funds such as PDAF, Malampayafunds, and the Presidents Social Fund have been plaguing th e public coffersfor decades, multibillion-peso scams erupted one after another beginning mid-2013. News and official government reports, mainly Report No. 2012-03released by the Special Audits Office of the Commission on Audit 5 on theallocation and use of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) andVarious Infrastructure including Local Projects (VILP), proved that theseamorphous funds are highly vulnerable to dissipation in favor of the likes ofJanet Lim-Napoles, her fake NGOs, and her politician cohorts.

8. Aside from detailing how billions of public funds are lost to graftand corruption, these accounts show how discretionary lump sums are usedfor political patronage from the lowest level of government up to the highest.News investigations and analyses detail how the PDAF and its earlierincarnations greased the wheels of Congress 6 and, in the process, deprived thepeople of basic social services. 7

9. Widespread public outrage against the pork barrel system fuelled

the August 26 Million People March in Luneta, Manila and in several protestsites in and out of the country. It also gave rise to various anti-pork alliancesacross sectors and classes, all demanding the abolition of all forms of pork, theprosecution of those accountable for looting the public coffers, and therechanneling of these funds to basic social services. One such alliance is the#AbolishPork Movement, which would later spearhead the Peoples InitiativeAgainst Pork (PIAP) to enact a law abolishing the pork barrel system.

10. From late August to early September 2013, three petitions were

filed before the SC questioning the constitutionality of the PDAF. On 10September, the SC issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the DBM,National Treasurer, Executive Secretary, or any person acting under theirauthority from releasing the remaining PDAF allocated to Members ofCongress under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2013. 8

5 Hereinafter, the COA Report.6 Pork is a Political, Not A Developmental, Tool. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Chua, Yvonne T.and Cruz, Booma http://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.html . Last accessed on 9 August 2014. Cited in Belgica (page 3).7 The people have spoken: End institutionalized plunder now! Center for People Empowerment in GovernanceIssue Analysis No. 03, 25 August 2013. Posted inhttp://www.cenpeg.org/IA%202013/PDF/CenPEG_Analysis_End_Pork_Barrel_Aug_25_2013.pdf . Lastaccessed on 10 August 2014.8 Republic Act 10352
http://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.htmlhttp://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.htmlhttp://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.htmlhttp://www.cenpeg.org/IA%202013/PDF/CenPEG_Analysis_End_Pork_Barrel_Aug_25_2013.pdfhttp://www.cenpeg.org/IA%202013/PDF/CenPEG_Analysis_End_Pork_Barrel_Aug_25_2013.pdfhttp://www.cenpeg.org/IA%202013/PDF/CenPEG_Analysis_End_Pork_Barrel_Aug_25_2013.pdfhttp://pcij.org/stories/2004/pork.html


6/37

6

11. On 19 November 2013, the SC promulgated Belgica v. Ochoa ,which defines the pork barrel system as the collective body of rules andpractices that govern the manner by which lump-sum, discretionary funds,primarily intended for local projects, are utilized through the respective

participations of the Legislative and Executive branches of government,including its m embers. 9

12. The outlawed PDAF or congressional pork barrel, on the otherhand, is a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund wherein legislators, eitherindividually or collectively organized into committees, are able to effectivelycontrol cert ain aspects of the funds utilization through various post-enactment measures and/or practices .10

13. Concluded the High Court:

The Court renders this Decision to rectify an error which has persisted in thechronicles of our history. In the final analysis, the Court must strike down thePork Barrel System as unconstitutional in view of the inherent defects in therules within which it operates . To recount, insofar as it has allowedlegislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post[-]enactmentauthority in vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated theprinciple of separation of powers; insofar as it has conferred unto legislatorsthe power of appropriation by giving them personal, discretionary fundsfrom which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselvesdetermine, it has similarly violated the principle of non[-]delegability oflegislative power; insofar as it has created a system of budgeting whereinitems are not textualized into the appropriations bill, it has flouted theprescribed procedure of presentment and, in the process, denied thePresident the power to veto items; insofar as it has diluted the effectivenessof congressional oversight by giving legislators a stake in the affairs ofbudget execution, an aspect of governance which they may be called tomonitor and scrutinize, the system has equally impaired public

accountability; insofar as it has authorized legislators, who are nationalofficers, to intervene in affairs of purely local nature, despite the existenceof capable local institutions, it has likewise subverted genuine localautonomy x x x.

For as long as this nation adheres to the rule of law, any of the multifariousunconstitutional methods and mechanisms the Court has herein pointed outshould never again be adopted in any system of governance, by any name or

form, by any semblance or similarity, by any influence or effect. Disconcerting as it is to think that a system so constitutionally unsound has

monumentally endured, the Court urges the people and its co-stewards ingovernment to look forward with the optimism of change and the awarenessof the past. At a time of great civic unrest and vociferous public debate, the

9 The Decision, page 35.10 Ibid.


7/37

7

Court fervently hopes that its Decision today, while it may not purge all thewrongs of society nor bring back what has been lost, guides this nation to thepath forged by the Constitution so that no one may heretofore detract fromits cause nor stray from its course. After all, this is the Courts bounden dutyand no oth ers.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. In view of theconstitutional violations discussed in this Decision, the Court hereby declaresas UNCONSTITUTIONAL: (a) the entire 2013 PDAF Article; (b) all legalprovisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as theprevious PDAF and CDF Articles and the various Congressional Insertions,which authorize/d legislators whether individually or collectivelyorganized into committees to intervene, assume or participate in any ofthe various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not

limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision ofproject identification, fund release and/or fund realignment, unrelated tothe power of congressional oversight; (c) all legal provisions of past andpresent Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDFArticles and the various Congressional Insertions, which confer/redpersonal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able tofund specific projects which they themselves determine; (d) all informal

practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to beacts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction xx x.11

14. In sum, the SC outlawed the PDAF or congressional pork barrelbecause it violates separation of powers, non-delegability of legislativepower, and the Presidents power to veto items in an appropriations law;impairs public accountability; and subverts genuine local autonomy . Theseprinciples for democratic government and transparent management of thepeoples money are diluted if not altogether defeated however way pork iscooked and served to lawmakers, whether through formal measures writteninto the law or informa l practices institutionalized in government agencies. 12

15. The Decision also recognizes that congressional pork perpetuatespolitical patronage, citing recent and not-so-recent history Over thedecades, pork funds in the Philippines have increased tremend ously, owing inno small part to previous Presidents who reportedly used the Pork Barrel inorder to gain congressional support .13 Adds Justice Arturo Brion on hisseparate concurring opinion:

A lump sum appropriation like the PDAF cannot and should not passCongress unless the Executive and the Legislative branches collude , in whichcase, the turn of this Court to be an active constitutional player in the budget

11 The Decision. Emphases supplied.12 The Decision, page 43.13 The Decision, pages 17-18. Citations omitted and emphases supplied.


8/37

8

process comes into play. The PDAF, as explained in the Opinions of Justice[s]Carpio and Bernabe, is a prime example of a lump sum appropriation that,over the years, for reasons beneficial to both branches of government, havesuccessfully negotiated the congressional legislative process, to thedetriment of the general public.

x x x

[C]urr ent practices [prove] that Congress has given him [the President] hisown pork barrel generally, lump sum funds that he can utilize at hisdiscretion without passing through the congressional mill and withoutmeaningful congressional scrutiny. As I have stated, this is a constitutionallyanomalous practice that requires Court intervention as the budgetarypartners will allow matters to remain as they are unless externally

restrained by legally binding actions.

Congress, for its part, is given significant authority to decide on the projectsand activities that will take place, and to allocate funds for these nationalundertakings. It has not at all complained about the loss of its budgetingprerogatives to the President; it appeared to have surrendered thesewithout resistance as it has been given its share in budget implementationas the current PDAF findings show. Thus, what confronts the Court is asituation where two partners happily scratch each others ba ck in the porkbarrel system, although the Constitution prohibits, or at the very least,limits the practice. 14

16. Two days after the Decision was handed down, the Aquinoadministration through Presidential Communications Operations OfficeSecretary Herminio Sonny Coloma Jr. said that the administration willcomply with the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring the PriorityDevelopment Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional. 15

17. A month after the decision was handed down, the Aquinoadministration enacted the General Appropriations Act for 2014 (2014 GAA). 16 His administration branded it a pork -less budget, because the PDAF item wasdeleted. The administration explained that sum of the amounts from theP24.25- billion item were realigned, at the instance of legislators, to otheritems in several agencies.

18. Of these realignments, a total of P20,761,644,000 are allottedfor new programs of the Departments of Health (DOH), Labor and Employment(DOLE), and Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and Public Works and

14 Justice Brions separate opinion to the Decision, p ages 9 and 11. Emphases on the original.15 Aquino government to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the Priority Development

Assistance Fund unconstitutional posted in http://www.pcoo.gov.ph/archives2013/nov21.htm Last accessedon 10 August 2014.16 Republic Act 10633
http://www.pcoo.gov.ph/archives2013/nov21.htmhttp://www.pcoo.gov.ph/archives2013/nov21.htmhttp://www.pcoo.gov.ph/archives2013/nov21.htmhttp://www.pcoo.gov.ph/archives2013/nov21.htm


9/37

9

Highways (DPWH); the Commission on Higher Education (CHED); and theTechnical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). Theseamounts are the House pork, to wit:

IMPLEMENTINGAGENCY PROGRAM

AMOUNT(in 000Pesos)

DOH Assistance to Indigent Patients- for hospitalization and the grant of assistance toindigent and poor patients (Special Provision [SP]8)17

3,193,950

DOLE Government Internship Program (GIP) and TulongPanghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged WorkersTUPAD Project

- for the payment of stipend of beneficiariesequivalent to seventy five percent (75%) of theexisting minimum wage in the area - for the payment of wages of displaced workersresulting from weather and regulatory shocks andinternal conflict during their short-termemployment under the TUPAD Project (SP 8) 18

1,022,000

TESDA Special Training for Employment Program- for the conduct of community -based specialtytraining for employment (SP 4) 19

1,022,000

DSWD Crisis Intervention Program- to provide financial assistance to individuals andfamilies in crisis situations (SP 4) 20

4,090,000

DPWH Regional and Local Infrastructure Program- for the construction and rehabilitation of thefollowing local infrastructures:a.) Local Roads and Bridges;b.) Classrooms and Academic Buildings;c.) Multi-Purpose Buildings; and

d.) Levels 2 and 3 Water Supply Systems (SP 8)21

7,309,494

CHED Scholarship Program- for the grant of scholarship assistance todeserving students (SP 3) 22

4,124,200

TOTAL HOUSE PORK 20,761,644

19. The SPs covering the programs funded by House pork have thesame provisos ostensibly intended to prevent a repeat of the Napoles scam,including a condition that the beneficiary shall first comply with requirements

17 2014 GAA, page 407.18 Ibid, page 458.19 Ibid, page 477.20 Ibid, page 553.21 Ibid, page 508.22Ibid, pages 649-650.


10/37

10

of the agency and the school or hospital, an authority for the agency to use upto 1% of the fund for administrative costs, an authority for the agency toengage a third party agency or organization to monitor the programsimplementation, a ban on delegation or transfer of funds to CSOs, and a

condition that the programs implementation shall be subject to guidelines tobe issued by the agency.

20. These programs were not among those in the proposed budget ofthe President for 2014. 23 Neither were they deliberated upon by the House ofRepresentatives as part of the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year2014 .24 Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Jr. also admitted that the funds arenot p art of their regular programs. 25 These SPs were added only after theGeneral Appropriations Bill went past the Lower House and the promulgation

of Belgica , when it became glaring that retention of PDAF will be not only beunpopular but illegal.

21. Senator s, for their part, realigned their Senate pork,amounting to a total of P1,794,500,000 to the following Special Purpose Fundsand line agencies:

SENATORSPECIAL PURPOSE FUND OR

AGENCY AUGMENTEDAMOUNT

(in million pesos)

A. Cayetano Calamity Fund 200.00P. Cayetano Calamity Fund 200.00Santiago Calamity Fund 200.00Ejercito Calamity Fund 200.00Recto Calamity Fund 200.00Estrada Local Government Support Fund:

Lla-lo, CagayanLGSF: CaloocanLGSF: Manila

50.00

50.00100.00

Lapid DPWHDOHDSWD

193.005.002.00

Revilla DPWHDOHUP System

84.5075.0035.00

Trillanes PNPPhilippine ArmyPhilippine NavyCHED

TESDA

7.4027.9522.0036.20

4.00

23 Or the 2014 National Expenditure Program. 24 House Bill 2630.25 Pork still working for lawmakers, Abad: Whats wrong with political patronage? by Salaverria, Leila B.,Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 March 2014 (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakers . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.)
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakershttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakershttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakershttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakershttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakershttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582716/pork-still-working-for-lawmakers


11/37

11

DOH 102.451,794.50

22. Explaining the realignments, Abad told the Senate Committee on

Finance that the realigned funds are for scholarships under state universitiesand the Commission on Higher Education (20%); employment under DOLE andTESDA (10%); medical assistance under the DOH (15%); assistance to personsin crisis under the DSWD (20%), and local infrastructure projects under theDPWH (34%). He also stated for the record that P24.5 million was allocatedper congressman per district albeit for specific projects only. 26

23. It should be noted that the appropriations for DOH, less therealignments at the instance of the three senators, amount to nearly P10.5

million for each of the 289 Members of the House of Representatives.27

Appropriations for DOLE and TESDA amount to nearly P3.5 million for eachHouse Member; for DSWD, P14 million; and CHED, also P14 million.

24. The said amounts are corroborated by a form 28 circulated amongHouse Members, after approval of the 2014 budget.

25. Pursuant to the said Special Provisions, the DSWD issued inFebruary 2014 Memorandum Circular No. 2, 29 the implementing guidelines for

the Crisis Intervention Program.30

Wisely, it does not mentioncongressman/woman and senator, nor indicate that he or she could havea say in pinpointing the beneficiaries of the financial, medical transportation,or burial assistance or any of the services under the program. Unwisely, thememo was routed to the offices of all congressmen/women by DSWDemployees, who practically just tendered to congressional staff the memocontained in an unmarked brown envelope. 31

26. Officials of the said agencies, including their Secretaries, also held

several meetings with legislators to orient the latter on how to access thefunds in these programs. One such meeting was conducted on 20 May 2014,at the Andaya Hall, South Wing Building of the House of Representatives, byDr. Janette Garin, Undersecretary for the Women, Children, and Family Clusterof the DOH.

26 Abad: PDAF realigned in 2014 budget, Corpuz, Nia, ABS-CBN News, 23 October 2013 (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budget . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.)27 At the time the 2014 GAA was passed.28 Annex A.29 Annex B.30 Found in the 2014 GAA as part of the additional P4,090,769,000 given to DSWD (amount represents thedifference between the 2014 GAB approved by the House of Representatives and the 2014 GAB approved bythe bicameral conference committee).31 Affidavit of Ms. Andrea Karla Guray, administrative staff of ACT Teachers Party-List Rep. Antonio Tinio.Annex C.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budgethttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budgethttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budgethttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budgethttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budgethttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/23/13/abad-pdaf-realigned-2014-budget


12/37

12

27. Undersecretary Garin conducted the meeting upon a letter ofinvitation to House Members to discuss the Medical Assistance Program. 32 Itwas attended by a number of House Members and congressional staff.

28. The Medical Assistance Program is the program designed by DOHto implement the abovementioned Special Provision 8 of the DOH budget inthe 2014 GAA, with appropriated funds amounting to over P3.1 billion.

29. Undersecretary Garin made a presentation on the guidelines thenrecently signed by Secretary Enrique Ona for the Medical AssistanceProgram, 33 using a slide presentation, 34 then entertained questions from theaudience. An audio recording of the meeting and a partial transcript areattached to this Complaint. 35

30. The following are several things of note in the briefing:

a. Undersecretary Garin is there as representative of the DOH. Shealso said that this whole program [MAP] was transferred to my office.

b. The DOH drafted the guidelines for the MAP in consultation withthe House Members, amending them three times. There was a lot ofconfusion among the Members caused by lapses on the part of DOH,because the guidelines that was given to you was in contrary to theinitial guidelines that I presented to the Speaker and the officers of theHouse.

c. The DOH recognizes that the funds earmarked for the MedicalAssistance Program are not DOHs funds but the House Members ,36 with repeated references to the assistance fund for indigents being thecongressional fund and your funds ,37 and the guarantee letter astulong ni Congressman, tulong po ng opisina .

d. The DOH acknowledges the authority of the House Member toidentify indigent patients 38 and to determine whether persons will

32 Letter of invitation from the Office of the Undersecretary to Rep. Antonio L. TInio (Annex D).33 Annex E, distributed during the briefing.34 Annex F35 Annexes G and H, respectively. The recording is authenticated by Mr. Romel Guisinga (Annex I).36 USEC GARIN: So, the decision of the Department is to do away with all walk-in patients because in the first place it was made clear to us that these funds are not DOH funds but are actually funds of Congressmenwho are there to assist their constituents. 37 On one occasion, Undersecretary Garin said, For the DOH -retained facilities, mali naman po talaga, lalo napag sinasabi nila na Uy, sorry po, wala po ditong pondo yung Congressman niyo. Hindi po talaga dapatsabihin yun. 38USEC GARIN: If in case nagpadala kayo ng pasyente, pagka- padala niyo ng pasyente, sinabi na Wala poditong pondo yung opisina niyo, which usually happens. This is something that we admit should nothappen bu t unfortunately the process of requesting the funds and downloading it takes a lot of time.


13/37

13

qualify as such. 39 Undersecretary Garin mentioned that the DOH incertain instances can issue a guarantee letter (GL) for a person asking formedical assistance with just one phone call from the House Member. 40 She also assured the audience that their referred patients are

guaranteed of assistance

We will not let the patient wait. We will notlet your office wait .and that the GLs will be good as cash kumbaga

parang SM gift check.

e. The signed guidelines did away with documentary requirementsof proving ones qualification for the assistance. 41

f. The DOH has assigned focal persons to be on call for theprocessing of guarantee letters from House Members, planning to install

at least three personnel so that there is someone to assist referredpatients 24/7. A list of focal persons per hospital was also distributedby electronic mail the day after the briefing. 42 Undersecretary Garin alsosaid they have trained enough staff, and will add more in the future, toaccommodate the requests of all House Members. 43

g. There are three procedures for the implementation of the MAP.

i. For DOH-retained hospitals with downloaded funds:

39 USEC GARIN: Okay, so the qualifications will be a recommendation from the MAP officials, and who arethe MAP officials? Kayo yan, these are the Congressman o r your designated personnel . 40 USEC GARIN: So, the proposal that we have in this case [when the funds have not yet downloaded to theHouse Members chosen hospital] kung saka -sakaling pagdating [ng pasyente], wala diyaan, walang pondoung office or whatever, we have a directory that will be given to you and that will be e -mailed to all youroffices. In that directory, there are two persons in-charge of all hospitals, so makikita ninyo dun sadirectory, andidito yung mga pangalan ng mga hospitals and then kung sino yung contact person natatawagan ninyo. So, for any problem, you immediately call, text or e-mail the persons in-charge of thathospital and automatically they will issue a guarantee letter direct to your office and direct to the hospital. 41

USEC GARIN: Now, on the implementing mechanism, we also learned that because it was going togetherwith PAU or the Public Assistance Unit of the Department of Health, nagkaroon ng maraming requirements soon the provision of Medical Assistance there were requirements as to the original complete prescription formedicines and medical supplies, the original laboratory request, the original physicians order request formand the statement of account , all of this, so for your previous guidelines under Section 4 (B) that wholeparagraph has been deleted so we, the new guidelines that you have now, its totally deleted. 42 Electronic mail from the Public Assistance Unit to the Office of Rep. Tinio with the subject final directorysent on May 21, 2014 (screenshot, Annex J). The e-mail contained a copy of the slide presentation and the listof focal persons as attachments.43 REP. SY-ALVARADO: Yun po bang ating available personnel in your office ho can accommodate allcongressmens concerns with regards to the sending of guarantee letters kasi po katulad lamang pos a akingdistrito po ay napakarami po na nabibigyan namin dati ng guarantee letter e kung minsan po animnapu,minsan po isandaang pasyente x x x E kung kaming lahat e halos three hundred congressman kami, can they allaccommodate all of us po for that particular thing? USEC GARIN: [W]hen this program came in and initially we thought it will be assigned to my office, wetrained people x x x Actually ni-retrieve namin yung lahat na trinain, we started calling them, we had ameeting last week, dinagdagan ng tao, so makakayanan po nila. And ahm, if there will be a bottleneck atsome point of time, nagdadagdag po kami nang nagdadagdag ng tao. But for now, people who werefacilitating before thats a total of 6 or 7 people ahm, now they are 14 and 21. So yun po situation po. Forsure they can accommodate everybody.


14/37

14

- The hospitals provides the medical assistance upon requestmade directly by the House Member to the hospital

ii. For DOH-retained hospitals without downloaded funds:- Requests are made to the MAP unit, which issues a

guarantee letter to the patient. The GL is presented to thehospital cashier, which then provides assistance on behalf of thehospital. A bill is sent to the MAP Unit for verification andpayment.

iii. For non-DOH government health facilities:- Same for DOH-retained hospitals without downloadedfunds.

h. Names of DOH officials are deleted in the GL in recognition of the

political points.44

The signatory in the old GL, Assistant SecretaryJimmy Lagajid, was removed so that there will be no doubt in the mindsof beneficiaries as to who facilitated the funds, 45 i.e., the HouseRepresentative.

i. The DOH has now banned from receiving the assistance walk-inpatients who go straight to hospitals without going to a congressman orcongresswomans district office first. 46

j. The Undersecretary also mentioned that any excess from the GLscan be used for take -home medicines. 47

44 USEC GARIN: We also understand na yung guarantee letter na unang nirelease, medyo yung format, Imean its good, its okay. Unfortunately, the format creates a lot of questions kasi nga parang its, its anindigency program of the DOH. Nawawalan ngayon ng, let`s admit it, the political points in, in the case ofthe office requesting it kasi ang nakapirma dun is Asec. Lagajid and it was placed there na hindi pwedeng i-honor pag Saturday and Sunday. Andudun din yung nakalagay na its charged in the office of the Secretary. So all of these were deleted. We will be giving you the new format of the guarantee letter. 45 USEC GARIN: Tinanggal na rin namin yung pumipirma, si ASec Jimmy Lagaji. ASec Jimmy is, kaya siyanandiyadiyan before, kasi siya yung head ng PAU Office and he is the HEA of Secretary Ona. We also admit na

hindi nga maganda tingnan na meron ibibigay kayo tapos makikita ng pasyente na ASec Lagajid kasinawawalan ngayon ng points na totoo naman na kayo ang nag-facilitate ng pondo. 46 USEC GARIN: Ito palang dalawang forms [from the PAU] because its a PAU or a Public Assistance UnitOffice, yung isang form na pinapadala sa inyo parang yung mga walk-in patient na gustong magpatulong .The PAU office writes a recommendation and sends it to your office. So medyo hindi maganda kasi parang angfeeling tuloy ng pasyente nagpunta siya sa DOH, ngayon itutulak namin sa office ninyo. Pag hindi agad na -entertain ng office ninyo, marami pang salita. So the decision of the department is to do away with all walk-in patients because in the first place it was made clear to us that these funds are not DOH funds but areactually funds of Congressmen who are there to assist their constituents. So the referral letter if ever youreceive one coming from DOH, dont mind that but we already gave instruction. I mean I personally gaveinstructions last week to do away with all of those. Kasi hindi pi-puwedeng yung mga kapag may lumalapitdun ire-refer namin sa inyo. You know best and you know better sino ang nanganagilangan ng tulong sadistrito ninyo. Isa pa, hindi rin talaga namin alam kung constituent ninyo because they can alw ays say theyrefrom this district, theyre from this area tapos hindi naman. 47 USEC GARIN: Now, meron ding mga tanong yung billing amount daw, hindi nagko -coincide sa requestedamount sa guarantee letter. We already gave instructions for the hospitals, kung kunwari ang pinabigayninyong tulong is four thousand or lets say five thousand. Yung billing niya kasi nabawasan pa pala ngPhilhealth or whatever naging lets say three thousand five hundred na lang para hindi na tumagal, pakuhaninyo na lang ng take-home meds niya. Kasi meron namang mga gamot din na inuuwi sa bahay so pakuha nalang dun. Idadagdag na lang nila sa bill yun. The hospital wouldnt mind as long as the amount stipulated in


15/37

15

k. Since the 2014 GAA states that the funds are for medicalassistance only, medical missions are not allowed. The Undersecretarythen suggested ways of going around the prohibition. She alsosuggested for Congress to include medical missions in the enabling SP

for the DOH funds in the 2015 budget.48

l. That issuances and instructions are released to offices andhospitals of DOH to implement the MAP in accordance to the above.

31. During the open forum, mechanisms used by the DSWD for itsHouse pork were revealed by a House Member who said that he was able totalk to Secretary Dinky [Corazon Soliman] . According to him, DSWDsassistance fund is identified by the local government unit chosen by the

legislator:

Ang napagkasunduan doon namin regarding yung situations like us namalayo kami sa regional office, malayo kami sa mga regional hospitals ornational agencies e ida- download po nila, meron na po silang ginawang MOAfrom the Central Office pipirma yung regional director ng DSWD at ida-download po yung pondo, lets say 12 million. Sabi ni Secretary, Cong, kahitkalahati lang muna kasi masyadong malaki. So yung kalahati po ida-download lang sa local government na gusto mo na mag- iimplement ng

programa ng DSWD at yung provincial government na yun, it will be signedby the governor and the regional director of the Department. Yung pondona yun, ang responsible na po ay yung LGU.

32. On 13 February 2014, the Philippine Information Agency (PIA)Region XII issued a press release entitled DOLE 12, solons partner foremployment, government internship projects. It states that, together withthe Department of Labor and Employment-Region XII, the eight congressionalrepresentatives of Region XIII are setting up plans for the implementation ofprograms and activities for funds coursed through the agenc y.

33. DOLE Regional Director Ofelia Domingo confirmed the P3.5-million allotment per congressional district for beneficiaries to be identified bythe congressmen under the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating DisadvantagedWorkers or the TUPAD program and the Government Internship Program.

the guarantee letter will be the amount will be the amount that the hospital will honor. If the bill is like fivethousand and the guarantee letter is four thousand five hundred then they have to pay for the 500 kasi medyomahirap silang i- ano... 48 USEC. GARIN: Ay just lastlast concern pala. Ang daming tumat awag tungkol sa procurement ofmedicines. While we would like to support that, our dilemma is that our hands are tied because in the fundsthat were approved, naka-specify kasi siya na hospital assistance. May we just request na kung pu-pwede forthe next year, specified dun na puwede yung procurement of medicines for medical missions because as ofnow, DBM does not allow us So yun naman yung medyo dilemma namin but then if you have medicalmissions, these are like out-patient, you can group them together like oh you can have a diabetes clinic oryou can have a hypertensive clinic and then the laboratories and the medicines that they will be using canbe charged to the hospital. So, pu- pwede po yung ganun.


16/37

16

Domingo also cited that she met with the solons in early January to informthe latter of the availability of the said budget and set the initial steps for therequired work plan.

34. It will be recalled that TUPAD and GIP have been provided withappropriations amounting to P1.02 billion as per Special Provision 8 of theDOLE budget in the 2014 GAA. The abovementioned allocation of P3.5 millionper congressional district are to be funded from this appropriation.

35. A copy of this article as it appeared in the website of the PIARegion XII is attached to this Complaint as Annex K. 49

36. Other reports from the DOLE Regions X 50 and V 51 also confirm the

P3.5-million allocation per district reflected in the form circulated after theapproval of the 2014 GAA. These reports from official sources indicate thatthe DOLE Regional Offices recognize the entitlement of district representativesto pinpoint beneficiaries for the GIP and TUPAD Program. The press releasefor DOLE X approved for release by Regional Director Atty. Alan M. Macarayasaid that Interested applicants are advised to visit their respectiveCongressional Districts Offices.

37. On 22 April 2014, lists of focal persons for DOH, DOLE, and CHEDwere provided by the Office of the Speaker to House Members. 52 The listscontain the names and contact numbers of (1) assigned staff in each of the 136covered hospitals for the MHCAP, (2) focal persons for the GIP and TUPADprograms of DOLE, and (3) CHED regional directors for its scholarshipprogram. 53

38. On 4 August 2014, the House Committee on Appropriationsconducted a hearing on the CHEDs implementation of their scholarshipprograms as mandated in Special Provision 3 of the CHED budget in the 2014

GAA, with appropriations amounting to P4.1 billion. According to ChairpersonIsidro Ungab, the hearing is an oversight committee hearing x x x We can actas an oversight body especially for x x x public funds.

39. The meeting was not announced in general as is usually donefollowing the Rules of the House. Neither were the regular and ex-officiomembers of the Committee on Appropriations given notice that it will be held

49 Taken from http://r12.pia.gov.ph/index.php?article=1611392260408 . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.50 A copy of this article is attached to this complaint as Annex L. Taken fromhttp://ro10.dole.gov.ph/default.php?retsamlakygee=356&resource=cfe6055d2e0503be378bb63449ec7ba6 . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.51 A copy of this article is attached to this complaint as Annex M. http://www.bicolmail.com/2012/?p=13798 . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.52 Affidavit of Ms. Guray, Note 31.53 Annex A of the affidavit of Ms. Guray.
http://r12.pia.gov.ph/index.php?article=1611392260408http://r12.pia.gov.ph/index.php?article=1611392260408http://r12.pia.gov.ph/index.php?article=1611392260408http://ro10.dole.gov.ph/default.php?retsamlakygee=356&resource=cfe6055d2e0503be378bb63449ec7ba6http://ro10.dole.gov.ph/default.php?retsamlakygee=356&resource=cfe6055d2e0503be378bb63449ec7ba6http://www.bicolmail.com/2012/?p=13798http://www.bicolmail.com/2012/?p=13798http://www.bicolmail.com/2012/?p=13798http://ro10.dole.gov.ph/default.php?retsamlakygee=356&resource=cfe6055d2e0503be378bb63449ec7ba6http://r12.pia.gov.ph/index.php?article=1611392260408


17/37

17

on that day and its agenda. Rep. Tinio was informed of the same only bychance, when he heard a fellow congressman mention it at a hearing ofanother committee, and was thus able to attend it.

40. A member of Tinios staff also attended the hearing and made anaudio recording of a portion of the proceedings. 54

41. Present during the hearing were Chairperson Patricia Licuananand Director Isabel Inlayo from the CHED, Director Cristy Clasara from theDBM, and State Auditor Julieta Escao and Director Sofia Gemora from theCommission on Audit (COA), as well as staff of these departments togetherwith House Members and their staff.

42. During the hearing, some disgruntled legislators present madeChairperson Licuanan explain why their lists of recommended scholars werenot being funded by CHED.

43. From the answers of Chairperson Licuanan, it was clear that sheknew that due to the Decision, legislators are now prohibited from taking partin the implementation of CHEDs scholarship programs, like they did under thePDAF system. 55 She explained that the COA on December 2013 issued theagency a negative audit observation. 56

44. Chairperson Licuanan acknowledged said that due to the SupremeCourt decision on PDAF, some of the Regional Directors treated the P14 millionallocation-per district as additional scholarships that they could award toqualified applicants from the general public. Pertaining to the earmarkedfunds from the realigned PDAF, Chairperson Licuanan said that We told them[the Regional Directors] what the restrictions were. That actually, this is nottrue, you do not have P14 million per district na extra. This will really be forthe congressmen.

45. Chairperson Licuanan also explained that CHED publicized thatthere are available scholarship slots, and thus opened the P4.1 billion-worth ofscholarships to all applicants but assured the legislators that CHED wouldgive priority to the list of beneficiaries submitted by lawmakers :

54 Audio recording of the hearing (Annex N), attested by affidavit of Atty. Maneeka Asistol Sarza, LegislativeStaff of Rep. Antonio L. Tinio (Annex O), with a transcript of the recording (Annex P).55 SEC. LICUANAN: I know I dont have the refinements of whether its oversight or whatever but thefact is, my un derstanding is that, well you used the term earlier, illegal post intervention. So in otherwords, you make the law, you dont implement it. 56 SEC. LICUANAN: We have a previous encounter with the Commission on Audit . They had a veryserious audit observation levelled to us, report to us that essentially, the way we were handling some of thePDAF that came to us as well as the congressional scholarships we give out was different from our usualscholarships which follow the same set of CHED guidelines.

That was even before PDAF became an issue. We said, all right, in which case, we will make surethat the same guidelines prevail for all the scholarships that we handle, including the congressional ones.


18/37

18

So that was what we were doing. But the system, I guess, take time. x x xThats [the public announcement of available scholarship slots] our duty.We had a lot of grants, we have to make this public. But in our adjustmentsalready internally, we said that priority would be given to therecommended the listahan of the congressmen.

x x xFinally, I had to say, Okay, people, this is the way it has to be. I know thiswas supposed to be illegal. Dapat wala na, but actually, meron pa .

46. The Secretary added, I am alsoaccepting the political realitythat this is PDAF.

47.

From these facts, Aquinos impeachable offenses of betrayal ofpublic trust and culpable violation of the Constitution are evident.

FIRST IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE:BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST

Aquino betrayed the public trust by perpetuating congressional pork throughinformal practices in defiance of the ruling of the Supreme Court, to the

detriment of public interest

Aquino also betrayed the public trust by breaking his oath that he willfaithfully and conscientiously fulfil his duties as President and preserve anddefend the Constitution, execute our laws, and do justice to every person

Betrayal of public trust

48. On 30 June 2010, Aquino swore to all Filipinos thus:

Ako si Benigno Aquino III. Matimtim kong pinanunumpaan na tutuparin konang buong katapatan at sigasig ang aking mga tungkulin bilang Pangulo ngPilipinas, pangangalagaan at ipagtatanggol ang kanyang Konstitusyon,ipatutupad ang mga batas nito, magiging makatarungan sa bawat tao, atitatalaga ang aking sarili sa paglilingkod sa Bansa. Kasihan nawa ako ngDiyos. 57

49. The SC has defined betrayal of public trust as acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against publictrust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism,and gross exercise of dis cretionary powers. 58 They need not amount to

57 Seksyon 5, Artikulo VII, Saligang Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas.58 Gonzales v. Office of the President , G.R. No. 196231, 4 September 2012


19/37

19

criminal offenses, but their commission proves that the public officer is unableto comply with his or her oath of office and refuses to serve the people.

50. According to the SC, the ground is broad enough to cover any

violation of the oath of office,59

unless the same is attended by human errorand good faith. 60

51. The framers of the Constitution gave examples of acts constitutingbetrayal of public trust, namely, betrayal of public interest, inexcusablenegligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty bymalfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, and favoritism, among others. By themanner and degree that they are committed, these acts prejudice publicinterest and tend to bring the office into disrepute. 61

52. By perpetuating congressional pork through informal practices indefiance of the ruling of the Supreme Court, Aquino violated his oath of officeand betrayed public trust through wilful breach of official duty by malfeasance.

53. This offense to the people is compounded or made graver by hisact of deceiving the public, whom he led into believing that he will comply withthe law against congressional pork and eliminate it once and for all, whilesecretly perpetuating it through informal arrangements between Congress and

the departments under his command.

54. He knowingly, deliberately violates the Decision, which has theforce and effect of a law enacted by Congress, by authorizing his Cabinetsecretaries who head the agencies handling the funds formerly known as PDAFto set up informal practices enabling House Members to intervene, assume, orparticipate in the implementation of certain programs, including the exerciseof discretion in the use of agency funds, during the budget execution stage.

55. Specifically, these programs are:

a. Assistance to Indigent Patients of the DOH,

59 Gonzales citing the Proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission:MR. REGALADO: [T]his is with respect to Section 2, on the grounds for impeachment, and I quote:culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption orbetrayal of public trust. Just for the record, what would the Committee envision as a betrayal of the public trust which is nototherwise covered by the other terms antecedent thereto?MR. ROMULO: I think, if I may speak for the Committee and subject to further comments ofCommissioner de los Reyes [the proponent of the addition of betrayal of public trust as a ground], theconcept is that this is a catch-all phrase. Really, it refers to his oath of office, in the end that the idea ofa public trust is connected with the oath of office of the officer, and if he violates that oath of office,then he has betrayed that trust.

60 Gonzales. 61 Proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. Commissioner De los Reyes


20/37

20

b. Government Internship Program (GIP) and TulongPanghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged Workers TUPADProject of the DOLE,

c. Special Training for Employment Program of TESDA,

d. Crisis Intervention Program of the DSWD, ande. Scholarship Program of the CHED.

56. Based on implementing guidelines subsequently issued by theDOH, the Assistance to Indigent Patients is being implemented as the MedicalHealth Care Assistance Program 62 or, as Undersecretary Garin refers to it, theMedical Assistance Program. 63

57. In the case of CHED, its scholarship program is essentially being

implemented as the Special Study Grant Program for CongressionalDistricts. 64

Hidden congressional pork

58. The prohibited intervention of House Members in theimplementation of these programs include the post-enactment identificationof localities, hospitals, and schools in the case of DOH, CHED, and TESDA funds;

the assignment of amounts that will be earmarked for and downloaded toeach; and the identification of beneficiaries and the amount of financialassistance to be extended to them.

59. This system is no different from the system of soft projects andtheir manner of implementation under the outlawed PDAF.

60. However, the whole system under the old PDAF is in black andwhite embodied in the Special Provisions for the PDAF item in the GAA,

administrative issuances from the DBM and the implementing agencies, andmemoranda of agreement between House Members and implementingagencies.

61. With the Belgica Decision, these written or formal practices havenow been prohibited. The PDAF item and any reference to it are not found inthe 2014 GAA; neither can they be seen in the guidelines issued by the sixmentioned agencies to implement their respective programs.

62 Note 34.63 USEC. GARIN: So first and foremost in behalf of the Department of Health, allow me to apologize for allthe chaos and confusions that the Medical Assistance Program has cre ated. 64 As mentioned by Region X. See Note 63.


21/37

21

62. However, the SC foresaw that it will be possible to perpetuate thePDAF through informal practices , and thus likewise prohibited all informalpractices of simil ar import and effect meaning, even unwritten practices bywhich lawmakers are allowed to participate in any manner in the

implementation of these programs. These practices will be difficult todocument as they leave no paper trail explicitly acknowledging the entitlementof legislators to these funds and their role in the implementation of theprograms.

63. Informal practices in the PDAF and PDAF-like schemes necessarilyrequire the cooperation between the department and the legislator. It will benecessary, then, to establish the linkages between them and the protocolsthey use in the course of this unlawful cooperation.

64. Such linkages and protocols are sufficiently described in (1) thehearing of the House Committee on Appropriations on the CHEDsimplementation of its scholarship programs, (2) the briefing by UndersecretaryGarin with House Members and their staff, both conducted within the verygrounds of the House of Representatives, and (3) the public statements of theRegional Directors of DOLE.

As admitted and acknowledged by Aquinos cabinetsecretaries and other executive officials, thecongressional pork barrel continues to exist despite theruling against it

65. Aquino, after the Decision announced to the public, through hiscommunications secretary, that his administration will comply with thedecision of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring the Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional. From the very words of the

announcement, plus (1) the fact that his administration did not move for thereconsideration of the ruling and (2) his earlier announcement that it is timeto abolish the PDAF, Aquino had no purpose other than to mislead the publicinto believing that they have seen the last of congressional pork barrel.

66. However, congressional pork is really not gone but has merelygone into hiding, with the full knowledge and under the instructions of Aquino.This is evident from the admissions of his cabinet secretaries and regionaldirectors of at least three agencies to which the House pork was realigned.

67. Faced with the negative COA observation and the BelgicaDecision, Chairperson Licuanan admitted during the AppropriationsCommittee hearing that CHED had to go through the motions of publiclyannouncing the availability of scholarship slots and applying their general


22/37

22

guidelines on scholarships, but to her, the entitlement of lawmakers to namethe scholars remain But in our adjustments already internally, we said thatpriority would be given to the recommended the listahan of thecongressmen. Most telling are her following statements:

a. I know this [giving priority to lawmakers lists of referredscholars] was supposed to be illegal. Dapat wala na, but actually,meron pa .

b. I am also accepting the political reality that this is PDAF.

68. For her part, Undersecretary Garin clearly stated that the P3.2billion MAP funds for medical assistance are the funds of lawmakers:

So the decision of the D epartment is to do away with all walk-inpatients because in the first place it was made clear to us that thesefunds are not DOH funds but are actually funds of Congressmen whoare the re to assist their constituents.

69. Additionally, she made it clear that it is the lawmakers who willidentify the beneficiaries of medical assistance: Okay, so the qualificationswill be a recommendation from the MAP officials, and who are the MAP

officials? Kayo yan , these are the Congressman or your designatedpersonnel.

70. The Regional Director of DOLE-XII, admitted in her press releasethat DOLE-XII is implementing the GIP and TUPAD programs in closecoordination with the eight congressional representatives of her region, evento the point of inviting the latter to prepare their work plans which will bethe basis for the release of funds . In the case of

71. Considering the scope and significance of the mechanismsdescribed, the admissions of these officials from three agencies underAquinos watch betray the Executive BranchsAquinos design to institutesystems that allows the treatment of funds under its management as thelawmakers, to be disbursed per these politicians discretion and not theagencies.

As admitted and acknowledged by Aquinos cabinet

secretaries and other executive officials, the agencieshandling the House pork still set aside personal lumpsums for House Members which they can tap anddisburse according to their discretion


23/37

23

72. Also admitted were the specific earmarked amounts which weretucked in to the five agencies after the realignment of PDAF. From the forumconducted by Undersecretary Garin, the closed -door meeting of theCommittee on Appropriations with Secretary Licuanan, and the press

statements issued by the three DOLE Regions, the amounts of House porkhandled by DOH, CHED, and DOLE, are proven to be P3.19 billion, P4.1 billion,and P1.02 billion, respectively. Also admitted are the allocations of eachHouse Member: P10.5 million, P14 million, and P3.5 million, respectively.

73. As shown by the meetings and public statements, theimplementing agencies consider these per-district allocations as personal lumpsums of each legislator a lawmaker recommends or refers beneficiaries tothe agencies, and the latter is bound by such recommendation and referral.

74. Chairperson Licuanan admitted that she informed her RegionalDirectors of the restrictions against legislators naming the scholars post-GAA,But actually, this is not true, you do not have P14 million per district na extra. This will really be for the congressmen.

75. We had a lot of grants, we have to make this public. But in ouradjustments already internally, we said that priority would be given to therecommended the listahan of the congressmen.

76. Undersecretary Garin also proved this entitlement granted to thelegislators:

a. Okay, so the qualifications will be a recommendation from theMAP officials , and who are the MAP officials? Kayo yan, these are theCongressman or your designated personnel .

b. We have a directory that will be given to you and that will be e-mailed to all your offices. In that directory, there are two persons in-charge of all hospitals, so makikita ninyo dun sa directory, andidito yungmga pangalan ng mga hospitals and then kung sino yung contact personna tatawagan ninyo. So, for any problem, you immediately call, text ore-mail the persons in-charge of that hospital and automatically theywill issue a guarantee letter direct to your office and direct to thehospital.

c. We will not let the patient wait. We will not let your office wait.

77. DOLE-XII Regional Director Domingo stated, The decision as tohow much the legislators would allocate for emergency funds and theGovernment Internship Program (GIP) depends on the congressionalrepresentative. This, after she held a meeting with the eight legislators in


24/37

24

SOCCKSARGEN or their representatives to inform the latter of the availabilityof the said budget . Per the approved announcement of DOLE-X RegionalDirector Atty. Alan M. Macaraya, Interested applicants are advised to visittheir respective Congressional Districts Offices.

Aquinos cabinet secretaries and other executiveofficials demonstrated that they have put in place

procedures and mobilized a significant amount of personnel and resources to enable lawmakers toexercise illegal post-enactment authority over the

programs funded by the House pork

78. The meetings with Secretary Licuanan65

and UndersecretaryGarin 66 detail the procedures by which their executive agencies allow theexercise by legislators of post-enactment authority beyond oversight. Theseprocedures are enabled through the mobilization of a significant amount ofpersonnel and resources. The public statements of the Regional Directors 67 that they involved solons in the formulation of work plans for the GIP andTUPAD Programs and their advice to applicants to visit the district offices ofthese solons are glaring official admissions of this fact.

79. The mechanisms for CHED essentially consist of its regional officesostensibly following the general guidelines for all scholarship programs but,following internal adjustments, priority would be given to therecommended the listahan of the congressmen .

80. For DOH, the mechanisms involve tremendous resources of theagency, including personnel in 136 covered hospitals who are on call 24/7 toautomatically issue guarantee letters (which are good as cash) to patientsreferred by lawmakers.

81. For DOLE, the mechanisms consist of the granting of slots foremergency employment or government internship in accordance with thework plans set up by the solons.

82. For DSWD, it was shown that Secretary Dinky Soliman herself hasmade arrangements with at least one solon to allow him to identify the localgovernments where the assistance funds will be distributed. This also showsthat the DILG is also in on the informal schemes allowing illegal post-

enactment intervention.

65 Paragraphs 44 to 46 of this Complaint.66 Paragraphs 30 to 31 of this Complaint.67 Paragraphs 32 to 33 of this Complaint.


25/37

25

83. The innocuous identification by legislators of beneficiaries prior tothe enactment of the 2014 GAA, granting but not conceding that they indeedoccurred pre-GAA, inevitably extends to the prohibited meddling of individuallawmakers into the functions of the implementing agency post-GAA.

84. The totality of these circumstances show a grand design acrossexecutive agencies, relating to billions of public monies, and involving at leastseven top members of Aquinos cabinet 68which cannot possibly occurwithout the knowledge and license of Aquino. This grand design consists ofthe Executive Branch bending over backwards to allow congressional porkbarrel to live on through hidden means something already prohibited by thelaw as pronounced by the Supreme Court.

The mechanisms admitted by Aquinos alter egos andsubordinates are necessarily informal to conceal fromthe public the persistence of congressional pork barreland the fact that the Chief Executive is subverting thelaw and public institutions

85. In the case of CHED, it is the Chairperson of the agency herself the alter ego of the President who demonstrated awareness of the political

reality that this is PDAF, retaining all the infirmities of the old, written systemwhere legislators identify who should receive the funds, to be handed outaccording to this legislators list regardless of the qualifications set by CHEDsguidelines.

86. Also part of the prohibited informal practices is the unwrittenunderstanding (that is, not in the 2014 GAA, the guidelines, or any of theissuances of CHED) that each House Member has specific earmarked amountsthat can be distributed in the form of scholarships, medical or financial

assistance, internships, and emergency employment.

87. These informal practices are evidence of Aquinos bad faith. Anygovernmental act, especially one involving billions of public funds, should havea basis and/or proof in writing, considering the state policy of transparency inthe management of public resources and accountability of public officers.Nowhere in the guidelines governing the implementation of the MHCAP, forinstance, is there an indication that an indigent patient is one who has walkedinto a solons office first before walking into the hospital, or that medical

assistance will be surely be issued upon the recommendation of a legislator.The guidelines for CHEDs scholarships ha ve even removed any apparent traceof the old Congressional Special Study Grant Program, and yet, priority is still

68 The five agencies plus DBM and DILG.


26/37

26

being given to the listahan of the congressmen, following CHEDs internaladjustments.

88. The culture of recommendation and referral is still occurring

within executive agencies handling House pork despite the absence of writtengrounds for it. Indeed, there will be no written grounds for it . The ExecutiveBranch is hiding the pork from the public whom he has misled into believingAquino when he said Panahon na po upang i-abolish ang PDAF.

89. Informal practices of dealing with pork do continue to exist inpost-PDAF times, like the informal practices relating to PDAF have persistedand been constantly observed throughout the years. 69

90. As the news reports and official government sources above prove,these concealed practices cannot help but surface, the conspiracy toperpetuate a noxious system mutually beneficial to fellow pork-holders andinfluence-peddlers cannot be kept hidden. Even hidden under the cloak ofexecutive secrecy, public officials such as Members of the House ofRepresentatives, state auditors, even one of the secretaries handling theimplementation of funds which turn out to be still pork will surely come out inthe open and express their opposition to pork and its inevitable expenditurefor political patronage and matters other than public purposes.

With his perpetuation of these informal practices, Aquino is the mastermind behind hidden congressional pork, and is forcing the entire bureaucracy of theinvolved agencies to implement illegal acts

91. As stated above, Chairperson Licuanan is the alter ego of thePresident for CHED. Her knowledge of the persistence of PDAF, although in

another form, and her agencys actions in implementing scholarship programs,are likewise the knowledge and actions of Aquino, her principal. The actions ofUndersecretary Garin, as they concern affairs with the Congress and relate tobillions of pesos in public funds and a major program in which grand resourcesand personnel of the DOH are mobilized, are also the actions of Aquino.

92. Aquinos other alter ego, his budget chief Secretary Abad, defendsthe realignments of legislators and their duty to recommend. In additionto the totality of circumstances already detailed, this pig-headed defense ofcongressional pork shows that Aquino is (1) fully aware that the legislatorspost-enactment authority or their entitlement to particular earmarked fundsprohibited by the Decision is alive and oinking in the post-PDAF budget and (2)

69 The Decision , page 43.


27/37

27

also fully aware of, if not endorsing, the outlawed informal practices going onwithin his Cabinet. These circumstances are not coincidental but reflect acommon, overarching policy to retain a system already outlawed by the SC.

93. In the midst of all these, Aquino has never issued a categoricaldirective or mere statement confirming the Decision as to the outlawedparticipation of lawmakers in program or project implementation and that hewill brook no violation of this law under any of the agencies under hisleadership on the national and local levels.

94. The statements and acts, including the how-to-access meetings,are ascribed to the heads of agencies that is, members of his cabinet and hisalter egos their local alterns, and legislators who are members of his Liberal

Party and its coalition. Secondly, these are not incidents isolated in oneagency or locality but well-repo rted, even by Aquinos own PIA, to be occurringas an open secret in all the agencies above and in the provinces and regions.

95. Being the Chief Executive, no major policy is implemented in thedepartments, bureaus, and offices he heads especially one that is universalto those given the realigned funds and involving a significant amount of publicfunds without his knowledge and consent.

96. At the very least, the take -care clause makes it Aquinos duty toexercise the greatest diligence to ensure that inviting and allowing legislatorsto refer and recommend projects and beneficiaries in any manner beyondtheir limited role of oversight do not occur. His denial, therefore, of theseinformal practices in the face of indisputable reports, granting for the sake ofargument that he really does not know what is going on in his agencies, is anadmission of negligence in the performance of his duties.

97. While Aquinos cabinet secretaries are the chief implementors of

hidden congressional pork, those in the entire bureaucracy down to thesmallest government employee tasked to secure the secrecy of a purportedclosed door meeting or assigned as a hospital assigned staff or focalperson for scholarships and internship are forced to commit illegal acts. Theserank-and-file officials are under orders to allow legislators to namebeneficiaries of programs, long after their role as legislators is done. They areturned into instruments with which Aquino can flout the law.

By perpetuating congressional pork through informal practices, Aquino prejudices the public interest

98. The SC through the Decision has prohibited congressional porkbarrel in whatever name and form for being abhorrent to separation of


28/37

28

powers , non-delegability of legislative power, the Presidents veto power,public accountability, a nd genuine local autonomy. It also echoed the peoplesobservation that the President and Congress are happily scratching eachothers back in the pork barrel system, damaging the public interest in th e

process. This damage is well known to the public.

99. Well documented and an open secret is the nature ofcongressional pork as largesse distributed by the President to lawmakers,either to secure their cooperation especially for the executives pet bills, orprotect him or her from impeachment . Aquinos immediate successor, GloriaMacapagal Arroyo, used pork as well as other perks to thwart fiveimpeachment complaints against her since 2005 over strong charges ofelectoral fraud and other constitutional violations, even as she consistently

denied it to progressive legislators critical to her, especially those whosupported her impeachment. 70

100. As congressional pork is the grease that turns the wheels ofCongress in the direction dictated by the President, so it is also the grease thatallows accountability for irregularities to slough off from the executive branch,especially its chief. Under the pork barrel system, legislators, individually orcollectively, intrude into the implementation of projects and programs whichshould be the sole province of the executive branch. This intrusion in turnimpairs the objectivity of the legislators whose duties as members ofcongress include overseeing whether the projects and programs are beingimplemented properly, or at all, by the executive branch. This dilution, evendefeat, of the checks and balances system is well articulated in the Decision .

101. From the meetings with Secretary Licuanan and UndersecretaryGarin, the evils sought to be prevented by the prohibition against PDAF are stillpresent with the perpetuation of Aquinos PDAF -like schemes for the hiddencongressional pork.

102. The protocols in the MAP as described by Garin to legislatorsamply demonstrate how the system of checks and balances a mechanismthat gives life to the Constitutional provision of accountability of publicofficers is dissolved. First , her audience and the ones who aided in thedrafting of the MAP guidelines are those who are duty-bound to check herDepartment in its implementation of the funds, investigating whenevernecessary whether taxpayers money are properly and efficiently spent. As

the SC said in its Decision, Congress cannot be expected to exercise itsoversight function objectively, or at all, if its Members were part of theprogram to be investigated. 71

70 CenPEG, Note 7.71 The Decision, pages 51-52.


29/37

29

103. The SC added, [A]llowing legislators to intervene in the variousphases of project implementation a matter before another office ofgovernment renders them susceptible to taking undue advantage of their

own office.72

Indeed, allowing legislators to approve guidelines for thedistribution of what the DOLE deems are not DOH funds but are actuallyfunds of Congressmen and giving them power to say who exactly should getthese funds, renders them susceptible to taking advantage of their power.

104. The second way in congressional pork destroys the system ofexacting the accountability of public officials is seen in the deletion in theguidelines of standards that would at least ensure that public funds are notgiven to just anybody, especially those who should not qualify for anassistance were it not for the endorsement of the House Member . DOH haswaived several documentary evidence previously required under the PDAF likeoriginal complete prescriptions for medicines and medical supplies, laboratoryrequests, physicians order request forms, and statements of account, whichwould have ensured that the funds will go to those who really need them, notto a Napoles-type individual or a fake NGO.

105. The hearing with Secretary Licuanan shows that CHEDsguidelines on scholarships are being reduced to lip service, if not completelyerased, with the priority status accorded to the listahan of thecongressmen. These guidelines, such as those with regard to priority coursesor the requirement to submit lists of actual scholars prior to downloading offunds to the higher education institutions, are safeguards that would ensurethat the public funds appropriated for scholarships will indeed go toscholarships, and not for other purposes, including political accommodationand patronage. As aptly observed by one daily, In the first place, the primaryreason for the abolition of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)was to safeguard public funds by ensuring that it is used entirely for thewelfare of the people and not for the benefit of legislators. 73

106. But the deeper injury caused by congressional pork, like anyother kind of pork, lies in the denial of equal access of the people to basicsocial services. This happens in either of two ways.

107. First refers to the culture of referral and recommendationcoming from politicians so ingrained in our society through decades of the

pork barrel system . Due to this practice, only persons who carry guaranteeletters or referrals can afford a medical check-up or procedure, or enrol in

72 Ibid, page 5273 CHEDs priority courses for scholarship grantees, Catanduanes Tribune, 3 May 2014.http://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3R1P . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.
http://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3R1Phttp://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3R1Phttp://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/3R1P


30/37

30

college, or receive employment assistance. Those unlucky enough not to havethese golden tickets given by politicians will have to forego going to the clinicor a higher education. Instead of enjoying services which are supposed to betheirs for the taking as a matter of right, the people under pork have to

knock on the doors of politicians to seek patronage or influence before theycould they avail of these services as matter of privilege.

108. The MAP guidelines have even strengthened this culture.Whereas under the PDAF, guarantee letters are required, a hospital under theMAP guidelines can even issue a guarantee letter to a person with just onecall of the House Member in case the funds have not yet been downloadedto the his or her chosen hospital . Also under MAP, patients referred bypoliticians are guaranteed of assistance We will not let the patient wait.

We will not let your office wait, said Undersecretary Garin on behalf of theDOH.

109. Worse, walk-ins in government hospitals, or those who wentstraight to the hospital without first securing a guarantee letter, aredisallowed. It is the politician who has the power to determine if a patient isworthy of assistance not the needs of the patient, not the social workersand doctors and other medical personnel who have the competence todetermine these needs.

110. Under this hidden, worsened congressional pork, what should beright of everyone is now seen as a privilege. Under this system alreadybanned by the highest court of the land, people who get sick should not callthe doctor they should call a politician. Those who cannot fully afford acollege education, at their young age, are taught that they need to seekpowerful patrons first before they can continue their studies. The same goesfor the unemployed before they can get ease their joblessness and earnincome while in between jobs.

111. Under this hidden, worsened congressional pork beingperpetuated by Aquino, the delivery of basic public services such aseducation, health care, social welfare, and employment assistance ispoliticized. The politicization of services denies access to the majority of theFilipino people who have neither the means nor the clout to go to the districtoffices of legislators or the House of Representatives in Quezon City. This isthe evil when we course the delivery of basic social services to politicians.

112. There is a second manner in which equal access of the people tobasic social services is denied. The practice of putting gigantic lump sums(which the SC said to have fattened through 23 years at least 12 times 74)

74 From P2.3 billion in 1990 to P24.79 billion in 2013. The Decision, page 17.


31/37

31

which are to be disbursed per the discretion of a sole or a few individualofficials have consistently denied the people of genuine and longer-terminvestments for services and infrastructure for their welfare. The peopleunder pork have been forced to forgo 12,500 classrooms which could have

been built with the P10 billion PDAF pocketed by Napoles, her politicalcohorts, and fake NGOs, and lost P74.3 billion the total PDAF budgeted bythe Aquino administration 75that could have more than adequately equippedand sustained schools, hospitals, and other public infrastructure, and spent for job creation.

113. It should be noted that the people the victims of pork demandfor the abolition of the pork barrel system because it deprives them of basicsocial services even as it leaves the government open for those who wish to

exploit its resources for personal use, including political patronage. Aquinoand his subalterns spit in the face of this public sentiment by using thepeople as scapegoats in their argument for the necessity of the culture ofpatronage central to pork :

Interviewed in the House of Representatives, Abad said it is still thelegislator s duty to attend to their constituents needs even if they no longerhave the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to fund it.

Theres nothing wrong if legislators recommend projects kasi trabaho nilayan , Abad said. Otherwise, magagalit ang constituents nila .

x x x

Abad said lawmakers had to retain the privilege of lobbying withgovernment agencies because they have constituents they need to take careof.

Instead of completely deleting [the PDAF] in the budget, Congress justdecided to reallocate it because there are scholars, people undergoingdialysis who need help. We cant just suddenly pull the plug on that, hesaid.

Abad, however, insisted that the practice of recommending projects doesnot circumvent the Supreme Courts ruling on the PDAF, which banslawmakers from intervening or participating in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution. 76

75 Aquino more than doubled the congressional pork dispensed annually to the men and women of Congress,from the P10,861,211,000 (GAA 2010) under the Arroyo administration to P24,620,000,000 (GAA 2011).76 Abad defends lawmakers practice of recommending projects to govt agencies, 5 March 2014,http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/351235/news/nation/abad-defends-lawmakers-practice-of-recommending-projects-to-govt-agencies . Last accessed on 10 August 2014.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/351235/news/nation/abad-defends-lawmakers-practice-of-recommending-projects-to-govt-agencieshttp://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/351235/news/nation/abad-defends-lawmakers-practice-of-recommending-projects-to-govt-agencieshttp://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/351235/news/nation/abad-defends-lawmakers-practice-of-recommending-projects-to-govt-agencieshttp://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/351235/news/nation/abad-defends-lawmakers-practice-of-recommending-projects-to-govt-agencieshttp://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/351235/news/nation/abad-defends-lawmakers-practice-of-recommending-projects-to-govt-agencies


32/37

32

114. Aquino and his administration defended the act of tucking thediscretionary lump sum fund formerly known as PDAF into the budgets of theagencies. His budget Secretary Florencio Abad, exhibiting his rejection of theBelgica decision, was quoted as saying that political patronage is expected,

and should even be tolerated:

Pork still working for lawmakers Abad: Whats wrong with political patronage?

MANILA, Philippines Budget Secretary Florencio Abad sees nothing wrongwith lawmakers asking the executive agencies that received the realignedcongressional pork barrel funds to help their constituents seeking medicalassistance, scholarships and the like.

Abad said lawmakers can refer their constituents to the agencies as this waspart of their job and their duties as representatives of the people.

As to concerns that this would only perpetuate the evils of politicalpatronage, Abad said political patronage will continue to exist as long aspoverty remains and people continue to ask for help from theirrepresentatives.

115. There has always been political patronage. You know why?

Because people will always go to their representatives. When they wake upin the morning, when theyre in Manila, people line up and ask for help. Canyou eliminate that? Thats something you cannot eliminate. Until we are ableto address rather substantially the problem of poverty, people will always finda way to go to their mayor, governor, congressman, he told reporters at theHouse of Representatives. 77

By perpetuating congressional pork through informal practices, Aquino is committing, at the maximum,

malfeasance in the performance of his official duties or,at the minimum, nonfeasance

116. The above discussion shows that at the maximum, Aquino hasbreached of his oath of office through malfeasance by perpetuatingcongressional pork through informal practices, something which is prohibitedby law. The law says that he should not deal pork to Members of Congress,yet he violates this law.

117. At the minimum, Aquino has breached of his oath of officethrough nonfeasance by failing, upon official and unofficial reports thatinformal practices of accessing pork still occur, despite the Decision, in at leastthree of his agencies. The law, even the fundamental law of the land, says

77 Supra , Note 25. Emphases supplied.


33/37

33

that he should do all within his power to faithfully and conscientiouslyexecute the laws 78 by installing policies against referral and recommendationby lawmakers and stopping the violations already reported, yet he fails to doso.

118. His violation of his sworn duties perpetuates political patronageand works to the detriment of public interest, depriving the people of equalaccess to basic social services.

119. In sum, Aquino, by retaining the congressional pork barrelthrough informal acts in violation of the SC Decision prohibiting them, hasbetrayed public trust, a treachery to the people compounded by his falseassurance that his administration will comply with the said Decision.

120. It is clear, then, from the foregoing that Aquino is guilty of theimpeachable offense

4th Impeachment Complaint vs. BSA

Documents

Transcript of 4th Impeachment Complaint vs. BSA