second impeachment complaint vs. president benigno aquino iii

Republic of the Philippines HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Batasan Hills, Quezon City

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF BENIGNO SIMEON COJUANGCO AQUINO III AS PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Youth for Accountability and Truth Now (YOUTH ACT NOW) National Convenor and UST Faculty of Civil Law Student Council President VICTOR LORENZO VILLANUEVA; UP Student Regent NEILL JOHN MACUHA; PUP Student Regent MA. ALEXI TIONTANGCO; NU Supreme Student Council President JAMES BRYAN DEANG; UP Manila University Student Council Chair JOHN CARLO LORENZO; PUP Sentral na Konseho ng Mag-aaral President CHARLEY LAPERA URQUIZA; UP Manila College of Arts and Sciences Student Council Councilor ALFE OMAGA; KASAMA sa UP Chair EDUARDO GABRAL; UP Diliman College of Mass Communications Student Council Representative BENEDICT OPINION; Philippine Collegian Editor-in-Chief MARY JOY CAPISTRANO; PNU The Torch Publication Editor-in-Chief ELLAINE JACOB; The National Editor-in-Chief JOSE MARI CALLUENG; PUP The Communicator Editor-in-Chief ROSE VALLE JASPE; Manila Collegian News Correspondent ELIZABETH FODULLA; Alyansa ng Kabataang Mamamahayag ABIGAEL ALMARIO DE LEON; San Beda College Bedan Advocacy and Consciousness Enhancement Society President KRISTEL BUNAGAN; Youth Act Now-DLSU GIANNA CATOLICO; Youth Act Now-UST VICTOR SEBASTIAN ADRIAS; Youth Act Now-PNU BENJAMIN VILLARICO; National Union of Students of the Philippines National President SARAH JANE ELAGO; College Editors Guild of the Philippines National President MARC LINO ABILA; Anakbayan Vice-Chair ORION YOSHIDA; League of Filipino Students Spokesperson CHARLOTTE VELASCO; Kabataang Artista Para sa Tunay na Kalayaan at Demokrasya Spokesperson MICHAEL BELTRAN; Student Christian Movement of the Philippines Spokesperson EINSTEIN RECEDES, Complainants

x--------------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III

YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 2 of 23

Complainants VICTOR LORENZO VILLANUEVA, NEILL JOHN MACUHA, MA. ALEXI TIONTANGCO, JAMES BRYAN DEANG, JOHN CARLO LORENZO, CHARLEY LAPERA URQUIZA, ALFE OMAGA, EDUARDO GABRAL, BENEDICT OPINION, MARY JOY CAPISTRANO, ELLAINE JACOB, JOSE MARI CALLUENG, ROSE VALLE JASPE, ELIZABETH FODULLA, ABIGAEL ALMARIO DE LEON, KRISTEL BUNAGAN, GIANNA CATOLICO, VICTOR SEBASTIAN ADRIAS, BENJAMIN VILLARICO, SARAH JANE ELAGO, MARC LINO ABILA, ORION YOSHIDA, CHARLOTTE VELASCO, MICHAEL BELTRAN, EINSTEIN RECEDES, to the Honorable House of Representatives, respectfully state:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

From a President who tolerates corruption to a President who is the nations first and most determined fighter of corruption1

In 2010, the Filipino people was promised such transformational

change from a regime that persecutes those who expose the truth, stays in power by corrupting individuals and institutions, confuses the people with half-truths and outright lies, rewards, rather than punishes, wrongdoing, weakens democratic institutions that hold our leaders accountable, hinders our local governments from delivering basic services, and offers no vision of governance beyond political survival and self-enrichment.

This transformational change was the fundamental premise

and promise of Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III who, at his inaugural, proclaimed the start of a journey through a Daang Matuwid.

Today, the Filipino people especially the youth find

themselves disappointed, disenchanted, frustrated and betrayed: Aquino has turned into the monster he swore to slay: A tyrannical

ruler who transformed the gargantuan amount of over 150 billion pesos of Congress-appropriated public funds into his own pork barrel, who arrogantly refuses to recognize, respect and obey the valid order of the Supreme Court that has found his pork barrel unconstitutional, who

1 A Social Contract with the Filipino People: BENIGNO S. AQUINO III PLATFORM of GOVERNMENT, Official Gazette, http://www.gov.ph/about/gov/exec/bsaiii/platform-of-government/, last accessed July 20, 2014.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 3 of 23

threatens the same court and its members with impeachment, and who spreads misinformation to deceive the youth and the people.

Since Aquino has shown a clear lack of delicadeza, wisdom and

humility to resign from office over his culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and graft and corruption, the concerned citizens led by youth and student organizations come to Congress today to avail themselves of the constitutional process of impeachment to hold him accountable.

As the duly-elected representatives of the people, the House of

Representatives must impeach Aquino and the Senate must convict him, to teach him and all future presidents about the seriousness and sacredness of their oath, awesome powers, and highest responsibilities as both Head of Government and Head of State of the Philippines.

Hold Aquino to his oath and word. Impeach him. Convict him.

Remove him from office.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

1. This is a Verified Impeachment Complaint against PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON COJUANGCO AQUINO III for CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST, and GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

JURISDICTION

2. This Impeachment Complaint is being filed before the Honorable House of Representatives through the Committee on Justice, which has exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment under Section 3, paragraph 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

THE PARTIES

3. Complainants are all of legal age, Filipino citizens, namely:



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 4 of 23

a. Youth for Accountability and Truth Now (Youth Act Now)

National Convenor and University of Sto. Tomas (UST) Faculty of Civil Law Student Council President VICTOR LORENZO VILLANUEVA, with office address at Faculty of Civil Law Student Council Office, Main Building, University of Sto. Tomas, Espana, Manila;

b. University of the Philippines (UP) Student Regent NEILL JOHN MACUHA, with office address at Office of the Sectoral Regents, Vinzons Hall Basement, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City;

c. Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) Student Regent MA. ALEXI TIONTANGCO, with office address at Office of the Student Regent, Charlie V. del Rosario Building, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila;

d. National University (NU) Supreme Student Council

President JAMES BRYAN DEANG, with office address at Student Council Office, National University, 551 Fortunato Jhocson Street, Sampaloc, Manila;

e. University of the Philippines-Manila University Student Council Chairperson JOHN CARLO LORENZO, with office address at University Student Council Office, Office of the University Registrar, University of the Philippines, Padre Faura Street, Manila;

f. Polytechnic University of the Philippines Sentral na Konseho ng Mag-aaral President CHARLEY LAPERA URQUIZA, with office address at Sentral na Konseho ng Mag-aaral Office, Charlie V. del Rosario Building, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila;

g. University of the Philippines- Manila College of Arts and

Sciences Student Council Councilor ALFE OMAGA, with office address at Student Council Office, Rizal Hall, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines, Padre Faura Street, Manila;



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 5 of 23

h. Katipunan ng Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP (KASAMA sa UP) Chairperson EDUARDO GABRAL;

i. University of the Philippines- Diliman College of Mass

Communications Student Council Representative BENEDICT OPINION, with office address at Student Council Office, Plaridel Hall, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City;

j. Philippine Collegian Editor-in-Chief MARY JOY

CAPISTRANO, with office address at Room 401, Vinzons Hall, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City;

k. Philippine Normal University (PNU) The Torch Publication

Editor-in-Chief ELLAINE JACOB, with office address at The Torch Office, Philippine Normal University, Manila;

l. The National Editor-in-Chief JOSE MARI CALLUENG, with office address at The National Office, National University, 551 Fortunato Jhocson Street, Sampaloc, Manila;

m. Polytechnic University of the Philippines The Communicator Editor-in-Chief ROSE VALLE JASPE, with office address at with office address at Charlie V. del Rosario Building, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Sta. Mesa, Manila

n. Manila Collegian News Correspondent ELIZABETH

FODULLA, with office address at University Student Council Office, Office of the University Registrar, University of the Philippines, Padre Faura Street, Manila;

o. Alyansa ng Kabataang Mamamahayag (AKM) ABIGAEL

ALMARIO DE LEON;

p. San Beda College Bedan Advocacy and Consciousness Enhancement Society (BACES) President KRISTEL BUNAGAN, with office address at BACES Office, San Beda College, Mendiola, Manila;

q. Youth Act Now- De La Salle University (DLSU) GIANNA

CATOLICO;



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 6 of 23

r. Youth Act Now- University of Sto. Tomas VICTOR SEBASTIAN ADRIAS;

s. Youth Act Now- Philippine Normal University BENJAMIN

VILLARICO;

t. National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) National President SARAH JANE ELAGO, with office address at Office of the Student Regent, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City;

u. College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) National

President MARC LINO ABILA;

v. Anakbayan Vice-Chairperson ORION YOSHIDA;

w. League of Filipino Students (LFS) Spokesperson CHARLOTTE VELASCO;

x. Kabataang Artista Para sa Tunay na Kalayaan at

Demokrasya Spokesperson MICHAEL BELTRAN;

y. Student Christian Movement of the Philippines (SCM) Spokesperson EINSTEIN RECEDES

4. Complainants may be served with summons, notices,

orders, resolutions, and other processes of this Honorable House of Representatives at #56 Caimito St., Mapayapa Village 1, Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City.

5. Respondent PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON COJUANGCO AQUINO III (hereinafter referred to as the "President, for brevity) is the incumbent President of the Philippines, and is being sued in his official capacity. He may be served with summons, notices, orders, resolutions, and other processes of this Honorable House of Representatives at New Executive Building, Malacaang Palace Compound, J.P. Laurel St., San Miguel, City of Manila.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 7 of 23

6. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution categorically and specifically provides, thus:

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. Section 3. 1. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. 2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. 3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. 4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 8 of 23

Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. 5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. 6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. 7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not

extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law. 8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section. (Emphasis supplied)

7. On 1 July 2014, the Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated its Decision in the consolidated cases of Maria Carolina P. Araullo, et al. vs. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., Augusto L. Syjuco Jr., Ph.D. vs. Florencio B. Abad, et al., Manuelito R. Luna vs. Secretary Florencio Abad, et al., Atty. Jose Malvar Villegas, Jr. vs. The Honorable Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., PHILCONSA, et al. vs. Department of Budget and Management and/or Hon. Florencio B. Abad, Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Secretary Florencio B. Abad, Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, et al. vs. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., COURAGE, et al. vs. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, et al., and VACC vs. Paquito N. Ochoa, et al.2, in which the Court declared, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petitions for certiorari and prohibition; and DECLARES the following acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program, National

2 G.R. Nos. 209287, 209135, 209136, 209155, 209164, 209260, 209442, 209517 & 209569. (2014)



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 9 of 23

Budget Circular No. 541 and related executive issuances UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being in violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, namely: (a) The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts; (b) The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive; and (c) The funding of projects, activities and programs that were not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act. The Court further DECLARES VOID the use of unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue targets for non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant General Appropriations Acts. SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)

A copy of the Decision dated 1 July 2014 is attached hereto, and made an integral part hereof, as Annex "A".

8. As found by the Supreme Court, the Disbursement Acceleration Program (hereinafter referred to as the "DAP", for brevity) had its origins in a memorandum dated 12 October 2011, from Sec. Florencio Abad (hereinafter referred to as "Abad", for brevity) seeking the approval of the President for the implementation of the proposed DAP. The said memorandum detailed the sources of funds and the "priority" projects to be funded under the DAP, totaling Seventy Two point Eleven Billion Pesos (Php72.11B).



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 10 of 23

A copy of the memorandum dated 12 October 2011 is attached hereto, and made an integral part hereof, as Annex "B".

9. Subsequently, Abad issued another memorandum dated 12 December 2011 requesting omnibus authority to consolidate the "savings" and "unutilized balances" of various agencies under the executive branch for fiscal year 2011. Similar requests to the President followed, through a number of memoranda dated 25 June 2012, 4 September 2012, 19 December 2012, 20 May 2013, and 25 September 2013.

Copies of the aforementioned memoranda are attached hereto, and made integral parts hereof, as Annexes "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", and "H", respectively.

10. On 18 July 2012, Abad issued National Budget Circular (hereinafter referred to as "NBC", for brevity) No. 541, implementing the memorandum dated 25 June 2012 as approved by the President. NBC No. 541 directed the unobligated allotments of all departments and agencies, as of 30 June 2012, to be subject to "withdrawal" for "realignment" and "augmentation" of the projects of other departments and agencies, including those belonging to the legislative branch, subject to the approval of the President.

A copy of NBC No. 541 is attached hereto, and made an integral part hereof, as Annex "I".

11. The aforementioned issuances were found by the Supreme Court to have violated Section 25, paragraph 5 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states, thus:

"5. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations."



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 11 of 23

12. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Section 25, paragraph 5 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution required an implementing law in order to be operative. The Court found that the authorization contained in the General Appropriations Acts (hereinafter referred to as the "GAAs", for brevity) of the fiscal years in question constituted insufficient authority for the transfer of funds to projects and programs being implemented by other offices.

13. Put more simply, the Supreme Court ruled that savings from appropriations for the offices mentioned in Section 25, paragraph 5 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution could only be used to augment the appropriations for items within the same office.

14. The Court found that the President and Abad had used the DAP to transfer funds amounting to One Hundred Forty Three point Seven Million Pesos (Php143.7M) to the Commission on Audit, and Two Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (Php250M) to the House of Representatives. These "cross-border transfers" were declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, and in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

15. In addition, the Supreme Court found that the "savings" subject to "withdrawal", "realignment", and "augmentation" under the DAP were not properly savings at all. The Supreme Court ruled that, under the GAAs in question, savings from appropriations could only be generated upon the completion of the purpose for which the appropriations were initially made, or upon the need for the appropriation being no longer existent.

16. However, under the DAP, the President and Abad allowed the "pooling" of unreleased or unallotted appropriations as "savings", essentially substituting the whim of the President for the wisdom of the legislature in the appropriation of funds for projects and programs to be implemented under the GAAs.

17. In short, the President and Abad believed and acted as if they controlled the "power of the purse", willfully disregarding the provisions of the GAAs and usurping the role of the Honorable House of Representatives, enshrined in the Constitution, in the determination of appropriations for the budgets of the various agencies and departments of the government.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 12 of 23

18. Further, the Supreme Court found that the President and Abad have used the DAP to "augment" items not covered by any appropriations in the GAAs. Put more concisely, the President and Abad saw fit to ignore the GAAs painstakingly legislated by the Honorable House of Representatives. Instead, the President and Abad played god with the budget, "withdrawing" funds appropriated by the House for various projects and programs, and "realigning" them to "augment" whatever projects and programs they thought fit, in complete and utter disregard of the GAAs.

19. Having declared the DAP and its implementing issuances constitutionally infirm, the Supreme Court recognized that the invalidation of the projects already implemented under the DAP would result in inequity and injustice to those beneficiaries who relied in good faith on the validity thereof. However, the Court made certain to point out, thus:

"[T]he doctrine of operative fact cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementers of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities."3

20. The invalidity and constitutional infirmity of the DAP, and the rank disrespect for a co-equal branch of government shown by the President in arrogating unto himself the role of the Honorable House of Representatives, are further aggravated by the fact that the billions of pesos of DAP funds have been misused to further the President's personal gains and political agenda.

21. On 25 September 2013, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada delivered a privilege speech before the Senate of the Philippines, wherein he revealed that he, along with other Senators, had been allotted an additional Fifty Million Pesos (Php50M) each as an "incentive" for voting in favor of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. This revelation brought the DAP to the national consciousness and precipitated the filing of the numerous petitions which the Supreme Court consolidated and unanimously resolved, by a vote of 13-0, in the Decision dated 1 July 2014.

3 Supra.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 13 of 23

22. On 14 July 2014, in a nationally-televised address, the President arrogantly and brazenly announced his defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the DAP. While millions of Filipinos watched, the President claimed that the court decision was "unreasonable" and "difficult to understand" and issued a thinly-veiled threat of a possible constitutional crisis between the executive and judicial branches of government that could be resolved by the legislative branch. It was widely viewed as a declaration of war and gross disrespect of the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution.

23. After disrespecting and lambasting the Supreme Court,

and issuing thinly-veiled threats against the magistrates, the President then proceeded to say that his administration would file a motion for reconsideration to seek to overturn the court's unanimous ruling. It was widely viewed as an open, transparent and silly attempt at blackmailing the Supreme Court magistrates into reversing their unanimous decision in favor of the President's unconstitutional ways.

24. It appears, however, that perhaps due to his intransigence, popular support for the President has disappeared to the extent that his demand for a show of support went ignored, and he was later forced to lamely dismiss his comments as having been made in jest. Indeed, the President's latest public satisfaction ratings are the lowest they have ever been since he took office in 2010.

25. The public and the legal profession have since come together in defense of the independence of the Supreme Court, with justices, judges, court officers and court employees expressing "silent protests" starting July 21, 2014. Meanwhile, the President's call for the wearing of "yellow ribbons" as an expression of support for his administration has miserably flopped.

26. Through the DAP, the President has culpably violated the

Constitution, breached the public trust, and committed graft and corruption involving at least One Hundred Forty Four point Four Billion Pesos (Php144.4B)4 in public funds, as of 2013.

27. Hence, the instant petition.

4 According to the Department of Budget and Management, Php144.4B has been released as of 2013, including Php82.5B released in 2011 and Php54.8B released in 2012.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 14 of 23

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

I. THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE

CONSTITUTION

II. THE PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED PUBLIC TRUST

III. THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED

GRAFT AND CORRUPTION

DISCUSSION

I. THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

28. Section 5, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires that the President take an oath prior to entering the execution of his office, to wit:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the nation. So help me God. (Emphasis supplied)

29. Notwithstanding his solemn oath, the President has, through the implementation of the DAP, blatantly disregarded several provisions of the Constitution. Foremost is Section 25, paragraph 5 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which states, thus:

5. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 15 of 23

Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (Emphasis supplied)

30. As found by no less than the Supreme Court, and notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal language of the Constitution prohibiting the transfer of funds from one office to another, the President has used the DAP to transfer funds allotted to executive departments and agencies, amounting to One Hundred Forty Three point Seven Million Pesos (Php143.7M) and Two Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (Php250M) to the Commission on Audit and to the House of Representatives, respectively.

31. Moreover, the Court has likewise found that the President approved these cross-border transfers despite a clear lack of authorization by law, as required under the said constitutional provision.

32. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the President ordered these transfers despite the fact that savings from items in the GAAs had not been generated, in violation of the requirements of the said constitutional provision.

33. The President has likewise culpably violated Section 29, paragraph 1 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which reads, as follows:

1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

34. Despite the unmistakable prohibition in the above-quoted provision against the release of funds for programs, activities, or projects not covered by items in the GAAs, the President has used the DAP to transfer funds from the programs for which the Honorable House of Representatives had appropriated the said funds, and realigning those funds into projects not covered by any item in the GAAs, including the One point Six Billion-Peso (Php1.6B) Disaster Risk, Exposure, Assessment and Mitigation (hereinafter referred to as



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 16 of 23

DREAM, for brevity) project under the Department of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the DOST, for brevity).

35. The Supreme Court found that, not only did the President transfer funds to the DREAM project, exceeding by almost Three Hundred Percent (300%) the appropriation made by the Honorable House of Representatives for the said program in 2011, the President likewise allotted funds for personnel services and capital outlays, expenditures which the executive branch had not even included in their proposed budget which became the basis of the 2011 GAA.

36. It is clear, therefore, that the President has willfully and repeatedly violated the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, with little regard for the sanctity of the highest law of the land.

37. In addition to specific provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has likewise found the President to have violated the fundamental principles which uphold our Constitution, including the principle of separation of powers, the co-equality of the three branches of government, and the primacy of the Honorable House of Representatives in the determination of the national budget through the GAAs.

38. Likewise, through his defiance of the Supreme Courts Decision dated 1 July 2014, the President has openly, brazenly, and arrogantly attacked the Courts role as the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution, as enshrined in Section 1 of Article VIII thereof, thus:

1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 17 of 23

39. The foregoing discussion considered, it is most respectfully submitted that the Honorable House of Representatives must find that the President has blatantly committed culpable violation of the Constitution, an impeachable offense under Section 2 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

II. THE PRESIDENT HAS BETRAYED PUBLIC TRUST.

40. In the consolidated cases of Emilio A. Gonzales III vs. Office of the President of the Philippines, et al. and Wendell Barreras-Sulit vs. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.5, the Supreme Court had occasion to define the term betrayal of public trust, citing the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, as those acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers.

41. The Court further clarified that, in order to constitute betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from office, the acts complained of may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment.6

42. As established hereinabove, the President is guilty of gross faithlessness against public trust and inexcusable negligence of duty through his failure to abide by the terms of his oath of office, particularly his failure to preserve and defend the Constitution and to execute the laws enacted by the Honorable House of Representatives.

43. Further, the President is guilty of tyrannical abuse of power and gross exercise of discretionary powers through his blatant and willful disregard of the prerogatives reserved by the Constitution for the co-equal branches of government, namely the Honorable House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.

5 G.R. Nos. 196231 and 196232 (2012). 6 Id.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 18 of 23

44. Through the implementation of the DAP, the President has arrogated unto himself the budgetary power of Congress. By defying the Supreme Courts ruling on the unconstitutionality and illegality of the DAP, the President has disregarded the Supreme Courts exclusive role as the arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution.

45. And, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the Decision dated 1 July 20147, the doctrine of operative fact "cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP" a cabal led admittedly by the President who approved the DAP and continues to defend it "unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities."

46. Put another way, the President cannot hide under self-serving and self-proclaimed professions of "good faith" in his twisted misinterpretation of the Court's ruling on the doctrine of operative fact, the same ruling he refuses to recognize and obey. He must be held accountable for approving, presiding, promoting and defending the acts struck down by the court for being in violation of the Constitution.

47. It must be remembered that, during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, then-Senator Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III decried President Arroyos realignment of funds appropriated under the relevant GAAs as having emasculated the power of Congress to determine the national budget and control the disposition of public funds.

48. It must also be emphasized that the President is far from an innocent bystander here. He approved and gave authority for NBC No. 541, affixing his signature and stamp of approval on the said circular, as well as each of the various memoranda and related issuances pertaining thereto.

49. The President explicitly granted Abad broad and sweeping authority to withdraw funds already appropriated by Congress for specific projects, and to realign those funds to augment favored programs, activities, and projects with total disregard for the

7 Supra.



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 19 of 23

established constitutional and statutory requirements for such transfers.

50. Whats more, the President himself approved each of those withdrawals and realignments, wantonly abandoning projects already determined by Congress to be worthy of funding, and augmenting whichever project stood to gain him the most political patronage.

51. It cannot escape the attention of the Honorable House of Representatives that the President has implemented the DAP without the transparency and forthrightness that indicates a legitimate measure to benefit the Filipino people. As of this filing, the executive branch has continually refused to reveal and make public the details of how funds under the DAP were put to use by the augmented programs, activities, and projects.

52. These are not acts of good faith. These are acts of gross faithlessness against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers, attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment.

53. The foregoing discussion considered, it is most respectfully submitted that the Honorable House of Representatives must find that the President has willfully betrayed public trust, an impeachable offense under Section 2 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

III. THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.

54. As earlier discussed, Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada has previously revealed the Presidents attempt to bribe members of the Senate of the Philippines with Fifty Million Pesos (Php50M) in DAP funds in exchange for voting in favor of Chief Justice Renato C. Coronas impeachment.

55. This act of the President constitutes the crime of attempted corruption of public officials, as punished under Article



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 20 of 23

212, in relation to the second paragraph of Article 210, of the Revised Penal Code.

56. In addition to attempted corruption of public officials, the President has also committed multiple counts of technical malversation. Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides, thus:

Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or by ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification. (Emphasis supplied)

57. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Oscar P. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines8:

The essential elements of this crime, more commonly known as technical malversation, are:

(a) the offender is an accountable public officer; (b) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (c) the public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law ordinance.

58. Attempted corruption of public officials and technical malversation are acts of graft and corruption. These are acts of a public officer penalized by law, and thus fall under the coverage of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

8 G.R. No. 96025 (1991).



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 21 of 23

59. The President is a public officer, accountable for all the funds appropriated under the GAAs, who applied public funds under his administration to allegedly public uses which the Supreme Court has found to be different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by the Honorable House of Representatives.

60. In short, every single element of the crime of technical malversation is present in the Presidents approval and implementation of the DAP. By realigning at least One Hundred Forty Four point Four Billion Pesos (Php144.4B) in funds to at least one hundred and sixteen (116) programs, activities, and projects under the DAP, the President has committed no less than one hundred and sixteen (116) counts of technical malversation.

61. Truly, the scope of the Presidents graft and corruption is staggering, not only due to the sheer number of occurrences thereof and the historic amounts of public funds involved, but also due to the brazenness and hubris with which he and his alter-egos committed the same.

62. The foregoing discussion considered, it is most respectfully submitted that the Honorable House of Representatives must find that the President has flagrantly committed multiple acts of graft and corruption, an impeachable offense under Section 2 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, complainants respectfully pray that the Honorable House of Representatives, after appropriate proceedings:

1. DECLARE the instant Impeachment Complaint sufficient in form and substance;

2. RESOLVE IN FAVOR of the Impeachment of Respondent President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III, pursuant to the procedure laid down by Section 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution; and



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 22 of 23

3. Immediately TRANSMIT the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate of the Philippines for trial and decision, forthwith.

Such other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 22 July 2014.

VICTOR VILLANUEVA NEILL JOHN MACUHA MA. ALEXI TIONTANGCO JAMES BRYAN DEANG JOHN CARLO LORENZO CHARLEY LAPERA URQUIZA ALFE OMAGA EDUARDO GABRAL BENEDICT OPINION MARY JOY CAPISTRANO ELLAINE JACOB JOSE MARIE CALLUENG ROSE VALLE JASPE ELIZABETH FODULLA ABEGAEL ALMARIO DE LEON KRISTEL BUNAGAN



x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PAGE 23 of 23

GIANNA CATOLICO VICTOR SEBASTIAN ADRIAS BENJAMIN VILLARICO SARAH JANE ELAGO MARC LINO ABILA ORION YOSHIDA CHARLOTTE VELASCO MICHAEL BELTRAN EINSTEIN RECEDES

second impeachment complaint vs. president benigno aquino iii

Documents

philippines youth

national editor

dlsu gianna catolico

national convenor

complainants x

manila college of arts

chief ellaine jacob

chief jose mari callueng