REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House of Representatives Complex
Constitution Hills, Quezon City

IN THE MATTER OF THE

IMPEACHMENT OF MA. MERCEDITAS
NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ AS
OMBUDSMAN OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Renato Reyes Secretary-General of

BAYAN, Mo. Mary John Mananzan of
PAGBABAGO, Danilo Ramos Secretary
General of Kilusang Magbubukid ng
Pilipinas (KMP), Atty. Edre Olalia acting
Secretary General of National Union of
Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), Ferdinand
Gaite Chairperson of COURAGE, James
Terry Ridon Chairperson of League of
Filipino Students (LFS)
Complainants.
x----------------------------------------------------x

VERIFIED IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT

COMPLAINANTS, Renato Reyes Secretary General of BAYAN, Mo.

Mary John Mananzan of PAGBABAGO, Danilo Ramos Secretary General
of KMP, Atty. Edre Olalia acting Secretary General of National Union of
Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), Ferdinand Gaite Chairperson of COURAGE,
James Terry Ridon of the League of Filipino Students (LFS), most
respectfully state:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

1
 Public officials are accountable to the people, not “sometimes”, not
“often” times, but at ALL times and must serve them with utmost
“responsibility and efficiency”. Section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution
declares so:

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.

The Office of the Ombudsman was created by the Constitution

precisely to ensure this.

Under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the

Ombudsman was created as an independent office duty-bound to take
prompt action on complaints filed against public officials and other
employees of the government. By fearlessly taking action and by promptly
investigating and prosecuting complaints brought before it, the Office the
Ombudsman is envisioned to be the bulwark in enforcing public
accountability among public officials.

“Article XI: Accountability of Public Officers

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people,
shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions, and duties:

1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any

person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.” 1

1
Section 15 of the RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Law similarly provides: Sec. 15. Powers,
Functions and Duties—The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed
against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory
positions xxx

2
 Section 15 of the RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act on the powers and
functions of the Ombudsman, carries the same provision:

“Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman
shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person,
any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency,
when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient.” (emphasis supplied)

The above is the reason why the Ombudsman is vested with

independence, as well as vast powers and broad discretion in carrying out
its mandate of enforcing public accountability within the ranks of the
government service. It is expected to take a proactive role in rooting out
corruption, inefficiency and impropriety in government, and not merely
stand as a passive receiver of complaints and evidence from the public.

What is the remedy if the person charged, such as the Ombudsman,

with prosecuting public officials for acts or omissions which appear to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient is herself charged with acts which are
illegal, unjust or improper at the very least appear illegal, unjust, improper
or at the very least inefficient ? The recourse is impeachment under Section
2 of Article XI:

“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.”

Ultimate Facts

Public service is of crucial importance to effective governance. This is

the reason why the Ombudsman was given the broad powers to prosecute
not only acts or omissions that are illegal, unjust or improper but even acts
or omissions that merely APPEARS to be ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER. In fact,

3
the Constitution mandates the Ombudsman to prosecute acts or omissions
which constitutes inefficiency.

The impeachment of the Ombudsman, being the only recourse left,

deserves no less than the same standard from Congress acting as an
impeachment body. If the Ombudsman can criminally prosecute lowly
public officials for appearing corrupt, unjust, improper or inefficient, the
Ombudsman must also be impeached for betrayal of public trust should she
be found to have committed the same through her acts or omission. After
all, impeachment is not even a criminal procedure which results in the
imprisonment of the respondent. It is not even a civil case where the
respondent may be found liable for damages. It is not even an
administrative complaint in the sense that it results in the banishment of the
respondent from office since an impeachment in the House of
Representatives does not mean the respondent is guilty of the impeachable
offenses charged. Impeaching a public official merely means that the
Articles of Impeachment is transmitted to the Senate, who, in turn, is
required to hear the complaint and decide whether the impeached official
should be allowed to remain in office.

A decision of the House of Representatives impeaching Merceditas

Gutierrez does not mean she is guilty of the offense charged, but rather, that
there is a legal and constitutional basis for the Senate to conduct a hearing
on the complaints filed by concerned citizens.

Presuming that ultimate facts are necessary to be alleged in the

Impeachment Complaint itself, the House should not require more than the
ultimate facts required in the filing of a criminal information. In a criminal
case, after a finding of probable cause, the Prosecutor files an Information
with the court for the criminal prosecution of the accused, and the ultimate
facts in such Information is generally written in the following manner:

4
 “That on or about (this date) in (this place) within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and criminally (e.g. stabbed the
victim to death) contrary to law or in violation of (this law).”

The ultimate facts contained in the example above is sufficient in

substance and form to trigger the criminal prosecution of the accused in
court. An impeachment complaint, which is a stage lower than actual
prosecution because it is merely akin to a probable cause hearing before a
prosecutor, should not require more than the above ultimate facts. In fact,
the probable cause hearing before the prosecutor is triggered by a mere
affidavit complaint and any additional data or evidence may be required by
the fiscal during the hearings on the preliminary investigation. An
impeachment complaint, especially in the substance and form stages, only
requires that an impeachment complaint names the respondent and alleges
acts or omission which constitutes the offense and the law or constitutional
provision violated, thus establishing the jurisdiction of the Justice
committee. Inordinately stringent interpretation of the requirements on
sufficiency of an impeachment complaint as to substance and form will only
make it difficult if not impossible for impeachment complaints of ordinary
citizens to prosper beyond the first stage of the impeachment process and
will signal the death of the only accountable mechanism left in the
Constitution.

Despite the above arguments, Complainants in herein impeachment

complaint made sure that herein Complain contains similar allegations to
ensure that the complaint fulfills the requirements of the House of
Representatives. The Complaint particularly contains :
(A) the name of the respondent (Merceditas Gutierrez);
(B)the act or omission committed (such as refusal or failure to
prosecute the respondents in the Fertilizer Scam or “Euro General” Eliseo
de la Paz); and
(C) the violation and ground (violation of Article XI of the
Constitution, RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act, RA 3019 (Anti Graft and

5
Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees Act) constituting the
impeachable ground of Betrayal of Public Trust and culpable violation of
the Constitution).

Considering that impeachment is not a criminal complaint, the

Impeachment proceedings should not be more stringent than a Regional
Trial Court trying an accused for a criminal complaint. It should not even
be more stringent than the probable cause proceedings before the state
prosecutor conducting preliminary investigation.

The reasons for the filing of herein impeachment complaint

The incumbent Ombudsman, Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez has

miserably failed to live up to the role of Ombudsman during the five (5)
years she has held the position. Far from the zealous and impartial body
envisioned in the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman has instead
become synonymous with inaction, delay, partiality and corruption in favor
of high-ranking government officials. During the term of Ombudsman
Gutierrez the filing of a complaint on illegal acts involving then President
Gloria Arroyo, the First Family or top officials of her administration with
the Office of the Ombudsman virtually carried with it a guarantee that the
complaint will all be forgotten, the perpetrators unpunished, and the
taxpayers’ money siphoned into their pockets will never be recovered.

“ There is a crime but there is no criminal” seems to be the rule under

Ombudsman Gutierrez. The Supreme Court found irregularities in the
Mega Pacific deal, but Ombudsman Gutierrez found no criminal that
requires prosecution. The irregularities were found in the congressional
investigation in the NBN ZTE deal, Hello Garci scandal, the fertilizer scam,
and the Euro Generals but Ombudsman Gutierrez found no criminal that
requires prosecution. The Supreme Court in the case of Sec. of Defense vs.

6
Manalo and even the Arroyo created Melo Commission identified Gen.
Jovito Palparan accountable for the extra judicial killings and
disappearances in the country, but Ombudsman Gutierrez did not find this
sufficient to prosecute Gen. Palaparan for acts or omissions which, at the
very least, appear illegal or unjust or improper.

The Filipino people deserve an Ombudsman who will perform her

constitutional mandate to protect them from graft and corruption – not
someone who condones –and in essence protects– the very thieves and
traitors that the Office was mandated to prosecute. Our people expect those
who wield the immense powers of the Office of the Ombudsman to spare
no effort in ensuring honesty and integrity in public service and to take
positive action against graft and corruption. They deserve no less.

As this Verified Impeachment Complaint will show, Ombudsman

Gutierrez’s acts or omissions and failure to investigate or prosecute, taken
altogether, constitute a veritable betrayal of the public trust, and a culpable
violation of the constitutionally established duties of her office. For all that
she has done –and all that she has failed to do – her impeachment from
office is thus most respectfully sought.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

The instant verified Impeachment Complaint is being brought under

Section 2, Article XI, of the 1987 Constitution against Ombudsman Gutierrez
for : (a) Betrayal of Public Trust; and (b) Culpable Violation of the
Constitution

PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT

The complainants in this Verified Impeachment Complaint are:

7
 (1) FERDINAND GAITE, Filipino, of legal age and Chairperson of the
Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of
Government Employees (COURAGE);
(2) RENATO REYES Filipino, of legal age and Secretary General of
BAYAN,
(3) MO. MARY JOHN MANANZAN, Filipino, of legal age and
Convenor of PAGBABAGO,
(4) DANILO RAMOS, Filipino, of legal age and Secretary General of
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP)
(5) ATTY. EDRE OLALIA Filipino, of legal age and acting Secretary
General of National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL)
(6) JAMES TERRY RIDON, Filipino, of legal age and Chairperson of the
League of Filipino Students.

For purposes of the instant Verified Impeachment Complaint,

complainants may be served with pleadings and processes of the Honorable
House of Representatives at 4th Floor, Erythrina Bldg., No. 1 Maaralin St.,
Central District, Quezon City.

No less than the 1987 Constitution allows the complainants to bring

the instant Verified Impeachment Complaint in pursuance of the imperative
need to maintain the inviolability of public office.

The RESPONDENT in this Verified Impeachment Complaint is MA.

MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ (hereinafter referred to as “respondent” or
“Respondent Ombudsman”) is the incumbent Ombudsman of the
Philippines and is being sued in her official capacity. She may be served
with summons and other processes of the Honorable House of
Representatives at the Office of the Ombudsman, Ombudsman Building,
Agham Road, North Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City 1101.

8
 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Ombudsman Gutierrez, who assumed office on 30 November 2005, is
the fourth Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines.

2. Immediately prior to respondent’s appointment as Ombudsman, she

was appointed by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel in the Office of the President.

3. Ombudsman Gutierrez graduated from the Ateneo De Manila

University School of Law in 1972 from the same class as erstwhile
First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo.

4. Ombudsman Gutierrez’s constitutional duty as Ombudsman is to act

promptly on complaints for acts filed in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.

5. Complainants hereby accuse Ombudsman Gutierrez of committing

the impeachable acts of gross betrayal of the public trust and culpable
violations of the Constitution. The present complaint will discuss how
respondent committed these acts warranting her impeachment from
office in the following instances:
(a) Failure and omission to act promptly, in violation of the
Constitution and Philippine laws, on the anomalous disbursement of funds
and other anomalous transactions in the case of the “Fertilizer Scam”
despite Senate Report 54, COA Findings and complaints filed by KMP and
other concerned citizens detailing the anomalies and graft ridden
irregularities in the transactions.
(b) Refusal to prosecute Gen. Eliseo de la Paz, in violation of the
Constitution and Philippine laws, one of the “ Euro Generals” for his illegal
act of not declaring before customs officials the more than Ten Thousand

9
United States Dollars (US$ 10,000.00) that he brought out (“exported”) of
the country despite his public admission under oath that he committed this
illegal act; and
(c) Repeated failure to take action on the poll automation contract
awarded to the Mega Pacific Consortium which was declared anomalous
and void by the Supreme Court in 2004.

GROUNDS AND ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF

IMPEACHMENT:
BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST and CULPABLE
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

I. BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST

(1) OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ

COMMITTED BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST
THROUGH HER GROSS INEXCUSABLE
DELAY IN INVESTIGATING AND FAILURE IN
PROSECUTING ANY ONE OF THEOSE
INVOLVED ON THE ANOMALOUS
TRANSACTIONS ARISING FROM THE
FERTILIZER FUND SCAM DESPITE THE
BLATANT ANOMALOUS TRANSACTATIONS
REVEALED IN THE COA FINDINGS, SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT 54 AND THE
COMPLAINTS FILED WITH RESPONDENT
ON THE “FERTILIZER SCAM”.

(2) OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ

COMMITTED BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST
WHEN SHE DID NOT TO PROSECUTE GEN.
ELISEO DE LA PAZ FOR VIOLATING BSP
CIRCULAR 98 (1995), AS AMENDED BY BSP
CIRCULAR 507 (2006), IN RELATION TO
REPUBLIC ACT 6713, WHICH PROHIBITS THE
TAKING OUT OF THE COUNTRY OF
CURRENCY IN EXCESS OF US $ 10,000.00
WITHOUT DECLARING THE SAME TO THE
PHILIPPINE CUSTOMS, DESPITE THE FACT

10
 THAT GEN. ELISEO DE LA PAZ PUBLICLY
ADMITTED UNDER OATH BEFORE THE
SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE THAT
HE TOOK OUT OF THE COUNTRY
CURRENCY IN EXCESS OF US$ 10,000.00
WITHOUT DECLARING THE SAME WITH THE
PHILIPPINES CUSTOMS.

(3) OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ BETRAYED

THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HER GROSS
INEXCUSABLE DELAY OR INACTION BY
ACTING IN DELIBERATE DISREGARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT’S FINDINGS AND
DIRECTIVE IN ITS DECISION AND
RESOLUTION IN INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

II. CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

THROUGH HER REPEATED FAILURES AND

INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN ACTING UPON THE
MATTERS BROUGHT BEFORE HER OFFICE,
OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ VIOLATED
SECTION 12 AND SECTION 13, PARAGRAPHS
1, 2 AND 3, ARTICLE XI ON WHICH HER
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY IS ENSHRINED, AS
WELL AS SECTION 16, ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH MANDATES
PROMPT ACTION AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION
OF CASES.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND RECITAL OF

FACTS

1. BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUST

11
 6. Betrayal of the public trust is a ground for impeachment provided by
the Constitution to cover all manner of offenses unbecoming of a
public functionary which are not punishable by criminal statutes.
This includes negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of authority,
breach of official duty by malfeasance, cronyism, favoritism (and) or
obstruction of justice.2

7. Under Article XI, Section 7 of the Constitution, as implemented by

Republic Act No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Law), one of the principal
duties of the Office of the Ombudsman is the prosecution of offenses
committees by public officers.

(1) OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ

COMMITTED BETRAYAL OF
PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HER
GROSS INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN
INVESTIGATING AND FAILURE
IN PROSECUTING ANY ONE OF
THEOSE INVOLVED ON THE
ANOMALOUS TRANSACTIONS
ARISING FROM THE FERTILIZER
FUND SCAM DESPITE THE
BLATANT ANOMALOUS
TRANSACTATIONS REVEALED IN
THE COA FINDINGS, SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT 54 AND
THE COMPLAINTS FILED WITH
RESPONDENT ON THE
“FERTILIZER SCAM”.

8. Despite blatant anomalous transactions revealed in the COA Findings

and the Philippine Senate Committee Report No. 54 (dated March 1,
2006)3 attached as Annex “A”, which contains its findings on the
“Fertilizer scam” and the evidence supporting the same, Respondent
Ombudsman has not only inexcusably delayed the investigation but

2 Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol,. 2, page 272.

3
Report of the Joint Hearings by the Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Food.

12
 also, has not filed any criminal Information in any court against any
respondent for the said anomalous transactions more than four (4)
years after she started her much delayed investigation.

9. Said anomalous transactions were not only found in the COA and
Senate Report but were also detailed in the complaints filed with the
Ombudsman by Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) and
former Solicitor General Frank Chavez.

10. This omission by Respondent Ombudsman is a clear violation of the

following: her oath of office and her duties under the Article XI of the
Constitution, RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act), RA 3019 (Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards Act) constitutive of betrayal of public trust.

11. The issue of whether a crime was committed in the P 728-million

Fertilizer Fund scam had been pending before the Office of the
Ombudsman for more than four years since the Senate of the
Philippines transmitted in 2006 its Committee Report finding
anomalous transactions therein. This inordinate delay is a violation of
her constitutional duty and Philippine anti graft laws and at the very
least constitutes gross inexcusable negligence that constitutes
Betrayal of Public Trust.

12. Considering that the Senate Report was even preceded by the
separate complaints filed by the farmer members of the Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), former Solicitor General Francisco
Chavez and the late journalist Marlene Esperat detailing the same
anomalies, Respondent Ombudsman failure to file the necessary
information before any court against any accused constitutes this
impeachable ground.

13
 13. The evidence of blatantly anomalous transactions were contained the
above Senate Report No. 54 which contained the following Findings:

14. Firstly, the funds used in the “ Fertilizer Scam” was a portion of a
large fund called the “Farm Inputs and Implements” as discussed in
Page 13 of the Senate Committee Report 54:
“The Php 728 million Fund is just a Portion of a Larger Fertilizer Fund Released
during the Elections of 2004

The Php 728 million fertilizer fund is just part and parcel of the huge fund
releases to the Department of Agriculture totaling Php 2.806 billion intended for the
purchase of farm inputs and implements in 2004, all made just before the May 10,2004
elections. Its breakdown as follows :

Nature of Fund/ SARO Number Date/ Amount

GMA Farm Inputs and E-04-0014 Php 728 million

Implements February 3,2004

GMA Rice and Corn and E-04-00294 Php 1.102 billion

February 11,2004

Marcos Wealth for CARP E-04-01 090 Php 544 million

April 28,2004

GMA Rice Program From Agency Budget Php 432 million

And Fertilizer Procurement
And Distribution Component TOTAL Php 2.806 billion

In a document submitted by the Department of Agriculture”, the Php 728 million fertilizer
fund forms part of the Farm Inputs and Farm Implements Program in 2004 to assist LGUs
in boosting their agricultural production and increasing farmers’ income.”

15. Secondly, the role of then DA Usec. Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante and the
others in the disbursement of funds as discussed in Page 19 of the
Senate Committee Report 54:
“In the fertilizer fund scam, Undersecretary Bolante is the declared architect.
He designed it. He was its brains. It was he who worked with the DBM for the
immediate release of the fund. It was him who prepared and submitted names
who would become the fertilizer fund’s proponents. It was Undersecretary
Bolante who sent letters to various congressmen and local officials informing
them of the availability of funds under the DA’s CMA Project. It was him who
directed these officials to coordinate with his office to discuss all the
requirements to facilitate the said project fund.

Undersecretary Bolante in the words of his then Chief of Staff, Ibarra

Poliquit, had a hand in determining how the GMA Project fund works and
will be spent. X x x x

14
In the Committee of the Whole public hearing of January 31, 2006,
Undersecretary Belinda Gonzales specifically mentioned that it was the
Office of Undersecretary Jocelyn Bolante who ordered the release of funds to
the recipients stated in the list. “I got instructions from Usec Bolante that this ---
- P 1 00 million ---- will be be transferred to the different regional offices.
Secretary Luis Lorenzo and Undersecretary Belinda Gonzales served as
cosignatories of Mr. Bolante in transferring the money from the Department of
Agriculture to the regional field units (RFUs) and to local governments.”

16. Thirdly, that farmers did not receive the said fertilizer “farm inputs”
as testified by farmers from all over the country including the
Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas as discussed in Page 21 of the
Senate Committee Report 54 :

“BUT NO ONE RECEIVED THE FERTILIZERS.

The Farmers’ Voices. The Peasants’ Woes.

In all public hearings conducted, the farmer groups were its most active and
cooperative participants. Farmers and peasant leaders from as far as the
Ilocos region and Western Mindanao aired their collective grievances. Theirs
are the voices of desperation.

One of the largest farmer organizations in the country, the Kilusang

Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) through its national leaders, Danilo Ramos
said that not one among their 64 provincial chapter fanner members from the
15 regions nationwide had received assistance from the so-called fertilizer
fund. Mr. Ramos lamented about their plight that for every bag of urea
fertilizer they would loan, they would pay an equivalent of three (3) 50-kg bag
of palay during harvest, adding that the system of usury is still widespread
because farmers have not received any support whatsoever from the
government.

The KMP emphasized that the meager amount of fertilizer that they should
have received during the year 2004 seemed to point to the direction of the
election fund campaign of Ms. Arroyo.
In the words of respected farmer leader Tatay Greg Rivera, “Ni isang butil nu
abono hindi kami nakatanggap ’’

In their consultations with other farmer organizations, the KMP group of Mr.
Ramos confirmed that other farmers groups which happened to be within their
alliance also indicated not having received fertilizer assistance.”

17. Fourthly, the disbursement of funds and other transactions were part
of a scam as discussed in pages 26-31 of the Senate Committee Report
54:

15
 (1) The  Senate Report discussed the mysterious beginnings of the “Farm Inputs 
and Implementation Program” in Page 26 of the Report, to wit: “As confirmed 
by  Secretary  Panganiban  himself  during  the  budget  hearing,  nobody  in  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  Farm  Inputs  and 
Implements  program.  In  the  files  of  the  Department  itself,  there  is  no  single 
document that would support the existence of such.”  
 
(2) There  was  overpricing  as  Page  28  of  the  Senate  Report  stated:  “Even  the 
design  and  implementation  of  the  fertilizer  fund  scam  manifest  the  height  of 
scandalous corruption. The gross overpricing as reported by the Commission on 
Audit  is  absolutely  abominable,  with  the  ordinary  foliar  fertilizer  (which  was 
allegedly  supplied  in  almost  all  transactions)  overpriced  from  almost  700  to 
1,250 percent.” 
 
(3)   Ghost  and  questionable  suppliers  and  deliveries  haunt  the  fertilizer  fund 
scam    as  contained  in  page    29  of  the  Senate  Report:  “AKAME  Marketing  is 
the identified supplier of a substantial number of transactions in the Php 728‐
million fertilizer fund. Process servers of the Senate failed to locate its business 
address  indicated  in  its  registration.  Tacloban  Star,  a  regional  newspaper  in 
Leyte  and  Samar,  reported  that  its  telephone  number  corresponds  to  a 
“gulayan  ”  stall  in  Kaloocan  City.      Another  company  named  Castle  Rock 
Construction was awarded multiple contracts under the same fund. COA, in its 
audit  memoranda,  noted  that  “no  copies  of  the  documents  from  the 
Department  of  Trade  and  Industry  was  available  that  can  show  that  Castle 
Rock Construction can engage or do business relative to the trading of fertilizer.  
Witness  Jose  Barredo  stated  that  FESHAN  Philippines,  Inc.  one  of  the  largest 
suppliers, is originally a medical supplier and started to supply fertilizer only in 
2004. Its office address as submitted to the DA is a non‐existing address.” 
 
(4) The corruption or at least the flawed and wasteful design of the program was 
discussed  in  page  30  of  the  Senate  Report:  “Undersecretary  Jocelyn  Bolante 
cunningly,  wittingly  listed  105  congressmen,  53  governors  and  23  mayors  to 
justify  the  immediatelyrelease  of  the  fund.  It  specifies  uniform  amounts, 
regardless  of  which  congressional  districts  or  local  units  the  proponents 
represent, whether the same are rice or corn‐producing LGUs or not. Bolante is 
not  even  mindful  that  the  locality  or  legislative  district  from  where  the 
proponent came from is part of the farm‐absent Metro Manila. From this list, it 
can be deduced that it was an intended flawed program using public funds. 

18. The Senate Report in Pages 32-35 then recommended the following, in
very clear terms:
(a) Criminal and Administrative Charges must be filed against Usec. Jocelyn 
Bolante,    Sec.  Lorenzo  Ruiz,  Usec.  Ibarra  Poliquit,  Usec.  Belinda 
Gonzalez,  Asec.  Jose  Montes,  and  all  DA  Regional  Directors  who 
participated in the illegal transactions for violating Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.  
 

16
 (b)  The  Ombudsman  together  with  the  Anti‐Money  Laundering  Council 
scrutinize  the  voluminous  documents  and  trace  its  flow  from  the 
Regional  Field  Units  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  to  the  local 
officials and file charges against them, whether elected or appointed, for 
violation of the Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.    
 
(c) The  partners,  suppliers  or  subordinates  in  the  private  sector  who 
worked  in  cahoots  with  the  above‐mentioned  officials  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  who  participated  in  overpricing,  supplying 
substandard and diluted fertilizers should be charged as co‐conspirators 
under the Plunder Law and Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices Act must be 
filed.  The  Ombudsman  is  advised  to  check  the  various  records  which 
would  indicate  their  names  and  the  complete  paper  trail  of  their 
respective transactions. 

19. As stated above, Respondent Ombudsman to date has not found

anything illegal, improper or inefficient in the above transactions or at
the very least found anything that “appears” illegal, improper or
inefficient in the above transactions, sufficient to merit the
prosecution of any of those involved in the “Fertilizer Scam”.
20. The criminal inaction on the Report is compounded by blatant
disregard of Respondent Ombudsman of cases filed before her
including the case by farmers groups composing the Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas.
21. On June 11, 2004, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
represented by Danilo Ramos, Pambansang Lakas ng
Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng Pilipinas represented by
Fernando Hicap, AMIHAN - National Federation of
Peasant Women represented by Carmen Buena, Alyansa ng
Magbubukid ng Gitnang Luson represented by Joseph
Canlas and DANGGAYAN DAGITI MANNALON TI
CAGAYAN VALLEY represented by Reynaldo Abrogena
filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 7080 or
the Anti-Plunder Act, Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-
Graft And Corrupt Practices Act, Malversation of Public
Funds under Articles 217 and 220 of the Revised Penal
Code, Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and

17
 violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus
Election Code against the then President of the Philippines
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EMILIA T.
BONCODIN who was then Secretary of the Department of
Budget and Management, MARIO I. RELAMPAGOS then
Undersecretary of the Department of Budget and
Management, NORA C. OLIVEROS the Director of BMB-E
of the Department of Budget and Management, LUIS P.
LORENZO, JR. who was the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture, JOCELYN I. BOLANTE who was the
undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture and JOHN
DOEs and JANE DOEs for illegal disbursement and release
of SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT MILLION PESOS (P
728,000,000.00) of PUBLIC FUNDS from the National
Treasury to the Department of Agriculture and
subsequently given to several named members of the House
of Representatives and to provincial governors and
municipal mayors, belonging to Mrs. Arroyo’s national
political party and/or allied party or perceived to be her
supporters.
22. In violation of her oath of office and the duties
imposed on her by the Constitution and the Ombudsman
Law to “promptly” investigate and prosecute “acts which
appear to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient”,
respondent Ombudsman never issued any notice,
resolution, or order to the complainants in the KMP
complaint and to the respondents relative to the case.
23. Despite the voluminous evidence in the Senate report
and the complaints pending before Respondent
Ombudsman in 2004 on the illegal disbursement of the said
public funds, respondent Ombudsman Gutierrez through
inaction, prejudicial to public interest, has not filed a

18
 criminal information against the respondents in the said
complaint before any court.
24. These violates the following, and constitutes Betrayal
of Public Trust:
24.1 Violation of her oath of Office and her duties to act
promptly on complaints provided under Article XI,
Section 12 and Section 13 of the Constitution which
states:

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors

of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any
form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.

Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the

following powers, functions, and duties:

1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person,

any act or omission of any public official, employee, office
or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

24.2 Violates RA 6770 particularly:

(i) For failure to act promptly on the complaints, the
Senate Report and COA findings, Section 13 which
provides that:
Sec. 13. Mandate. - The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on
complaints filed in any form or manner against officers
or employees of the government, or of any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and
enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability
in every case where the evidence warrants in order to
promote efficient service by the Government to the
people

(ii) For failure to prosecute, Section 15 which states

that:

Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of

the Ombudsman shall have the following powers,
functions and duties:

19
 (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on
complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
public officer or employee, office or agency, when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper
or inefficient

24.3 Violation of RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act, particularly:
(i) for manifest partiality in favor of those involved in
the fertilizer scam or at the very least for gross
inexcusable negligence, violation of Section 3 (e)
which states that it is corrupt practice to
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence.

(ii) For violating Section 3 (d)

f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,

without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for
the purpose of x x x giving undue advantage in favor of
or discriminating against any other interested party.

24.5 RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical

Standards of Public Officials and Employees,
particularly:
(i) Section 4 (a) for not upholding public interest:

(a) Commitment to public interest. — Public officials

and employees shall always uphold the public interest
over and above personal interest. All government
resources and powers of their respective offices must
be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly
and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in
public funds and revenues.

(ii) Section 4 (b) for failing to perform and discharge

her duties with the highest degree of
professionalism, intelligence and skill:

20
 (b) Professionalism. — Public officials and employees
shall perform and discharge their duties with the
highest degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service
with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They
shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their
roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage

(2) OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS

GUTIERREZ, IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND RA 6770 AND THE
OMBUDSMAN ACT, COMMITTED
BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST WHEN SHE
WILLFULLY REFUSED TO PROSECUTE
GEN. ELISEO DE LA PAZ FOR VIOLATING
BSP CIRCULAR 98 (1995) AS AMENDED BY
BSP CIRCULAR 507 (2006) IN RELATION
TO REPUBLIC ACT 6713 WHICH
PROHIBITS THE TAKING OUT OF THE
COUNTRY OF CURRENCY IN EXCESS OF
US $ 10,000.00 WITHOUT DECLARING THE
SAME WITH THE PHILIPPINE CUSTOMS,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT GEN. ELISEO
DE LA PAZ PUBLICLY ADMITTED UNDER
OATH BEFORE THE SENATE BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 15,
2008 THAT HE TOOK OUT OF THE
COUNTRY CURRENCY IN EXCESS OF US $
10,000.00 WITHOUT DECLARING THE
SAME WITH THE PHILIPPINES CUSTOMS.

25. Ombudsman Gutierrez committed gross inexcusable inaction when

she did not prosecute “Euro General” PNP Dir. Eliseo De la Paz
despite his public admission under oath before the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee that he did not declare with the Philippine
Customs that he was bringing out of the country or exporting
currency worth more than US$ 10,000.00 in violation of BSP Circular
98 (S 1995) as amended.

26. Gen. de la Paz, who was the Comptroller of the Philippine National
Police at the time, was arrested by customs inspectors at Moscow
International Airport on 11 October 2008 after he was found carrying

21
 105,000 Euros (P6.93M) in his carry-on baggage, which exceeded the
3,000-euro limit for departing passengers.

27. He initially declared that the amount he took out, totaling P 9.1
Million, was cash advance for the PNP delegations trip to Moscow.
He later declared it came from intelligence fund to buy equipment.
His last version was that the money came from a friend who asked
him to buy an expensive watch.

28. He was investigated by the Philippine Senate upon his return to the
Philippines where it was established that he took out foreign currency
(Euro) worth more than Ten Thousand United States dollars.
29. Gen. De la Paz admitted under oath during the hearings of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, which issued the Senate Committee
Report after the hearings, that he brought out of the country more
than Ten Thousand United States dollars worth of Euros without
declaring the same with the Philippine Customs as required by
Central Bank circulars and that he was aware of that requirement.

30. The Senate Committee Report No. 229 (dated November 13, 2008)
also stated that Airport Customs Collector Teresita Roque has
declared that Gen. De la Paz did not declare any excess currency
when he left the country.

31. The said Senate Committee Report No 229 (attached as Annex “B”)
contained the laws and regulations violated by Gen. de la Paz for
such failure to declare, to wit:

Dela Paz Violated Banko Sentral Regulations

BSP Circular No. 308 issued 2001; MB Resolution No. 1779 issued
2001, as amended by BSP Circular No. 57 issued 2006; and MB
Resolution No. 1588 issued 2005, all require “a person who is bringing
into or out of the Philippines foreign currency in excess of @10,000 or its
equivalent,” to furnish the Monetary Board with a statement in writing
disclosing the source and purpose for carrying the subject amount of
money.

22
 R.A. No. 7653, aka the New Central Bank Act, Section 36, imposes a
penalty of: “A fine of not less than @50,000 nor more than @200,000, or
by imprisonment of not less than two (2) years or more than ten (10)
years, or both. at the discretion of the Court.”

32. The same Senate Committee Report 229 recommended the filing of
criminal charges against Gen. Eliseo de la Paz:
33. The failure to declare the above amount is subject to prosecution as
provided under BSP Circular No. 98 dated 11 December 1995 and BSP
circular 308 as amended (attached as Annex “C”) in relation to
Section 36 of RA 7653 which provides for a fine or imprisonment of
“not less than two years nor more than ten years or both” as penalties
for violation of Central Bank or BSP circulars.

34. The act or omission of Gen. de la Paz is clearly a violation of the law
and BSP circulars as it consists of the two elements constitutive of the
offense, namely: (1) the taking out of the country of currency in excess
of Ten Thousand United States Dollars (US$ 10,000.00); and (2) the
failure to declare the same with the Philippine customs. (This is akin
to a criminal case for illegal possession of firearms where the judge
must convict the accused once he admits under oath that he
committed the following: (1) possessing a firearm, and (2) he was not
licensed to possess such firearm).

35. Despite this clear violation, that requires no lengthy investigation as

Gen. de la Paz himself admitted to both the elements, the office of the
Ombudsman continued to make pronouncements that they are
investigating the case months after the incident and even well into
2009.

36. To date, Ombudsman Gutierrez has not filed any criminal

information against Eliseo de la Paz.4

1. Ombudsman Gutierrez even refused to prosecute Gen. De la Paz despite the

recommendation of the PNP itself that he be prosecuted for De la Paz for violation of PD
1445.

23
 37. If it is true that Gen. de la Paz returned to the PNP the funds
confiscated from him in Moscow, that does not constitute absolution
for his violation of Philippine laws and BSP circulars.

38. The inexcusable inaction of the Respondent Ombudsman in not

prosecuting Gen. Eliseo de la Paz despite his admission of guilt
constitutes a Betrayal of Trust.

(3) OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ

BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY
ACTING IN DELIBERATE DISREGARD OF
THE SUPREME COURT’S FINDINGS AND
DIRECTIVE IN ITS DECISION AND
RESOLUTION IN INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.

39. In Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, et al. vs.

Commission on Elections, et al.5, the Supreme Court made the following
rulings:

a. Declared null and void Comelec Resolution No. 6074

dated April 15, 2003, awarding contract for the purchase of
election counting machines to Mega Pacific Consortium.

b. Declared null and void the Contract executed between

Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. and the Commission on Election
for the purchase of the said election counting machines.

c. Enjoined the implementation of any other contract

relative to the Automated Election System project.

40. The controversial contract weight heavily on the public coffers. The
contract was worth One Billion Three Million (1,300,000,000.00) Pesos, and
the taxpayers shouldered the cost of storage expenses for the counting

5 G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004

24
machines which amounted to P329,355.26 per month or P3,979,460.24
annually. The amount involved in the contract emphasizes the seriousness
of the acts committed by the officials of the COMELEC. The Supreme Court
pointed out the following anomalies in the transaction:

a. The contract was awarded to an entity (Mega Pacific

eSolutions, Inc.) which did not participate in the bidding.

b. The awardee did not pass the eligibility

requirements for the bidding.
c. The bid of the awardee did not pass the technical
requirements for the bidding.
d. The bid specifications were changed during the evaluation
of the bid.
e. The resolution awarding the contract was issued before the
Bids and Awards Committee issued its written report.

41. Due to these irregularities, the Supreme Court, in Information

Technology Foundation of the Philippines, supra, made the following
observations:
“Unfortunately, Comelec has failed to measure up to this historic
task. As stated at the start of this Decision, Comelec has not merely
gravely abused its discretion in awarding the Contract for the
automation of the counting and canvassing of the ballots. It has also
put at grave risk the holding of credible and peaceful elections by
shoddily accepting electronic hardware and software that
admittedly failed to pass legally mandated technical requirements.
Inadequate as they are, the remedies it proffers post facto do not
cure the grave abuse of discretion it already committed (1) on April
15, 2003, when it illegally made the award; and (2) ‘sometime’ in
May 2003 when it executed the Contract for the purchase of
defective machines and non-existent software from a non-eligible
bidder.”

42. Undeniably, the irregularities occurred not only during the

proceedings before the Bids and Awards Committee but also during the
approval of the award by the COMELEC en banc. In other words, the entire
process was rigged. Consequently, the liability for the irregularities should

25
rest not only on the members of the Bidding and Awards Committee, but
also on the Commissioners of the COMELEC. Due to the seriousness of the
irregularity and the officials involved, the Supreme Court deemed it
necessary to refer the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for
investigation and to prosecute those involved.

43. It is worthy to note that in its Report6 dated 12 December 2005, the
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
(Senate Blue Ribbon) chaired by Senator Joker Arroyo also came out with a
similar conclusion, finding several COMELEC officials and members of
BAC liable on the illegal and nullified contract.

44. While she took initial actions in compliance with the aforementioned
directive of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman sat on the investigations.
One year and four months after the referral, no concrete actions were
undertaken. The unexplained delay in the investigation has prompted the
Supreme Court to issue a Resolution dated February 14, 2006 requiring her:

“to SHOW CAUSE why it should not be held in contempt of court

for its failure to fully comply with the Court's directive in the
January 13, 2004 Decision on the instant case, and to MANIFEST
compliance with the directive..."

45. In its Resolution dated May 3, 2006, the Supreme Court reiterated its
directive to Ombudsman Gutierrez. The dispositive portion of the said
Resolution provides:
“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Clarification of petitioners is
NOTED.

The disposition of the Court in its March 28, 2006 Resolution is

hereby CLARIFIED, consistent with the above disquisition, as
follows: The Office of the Ombudsman shall, under pain of
contempt, report to this Court by June 30, 2006, its final
determination of whether a probable cause exists against any of the
public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any) involved
in the subject Resolution and Contract. If it finds that probable
cause exists, it shall continue to render its reports every three
months thereafter, until the matter is finally disposed of by the

6 A copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof.

26
 proper courts.”

46. Obviously, the Ombudsman intentionally stalled the investigation on

the irregularities, thereby shielding the perpetrators, especially the
commissioners and other high ranking officials of the COMELEC.

47. When the Ombudsman finally came out with her Resolution on the
investigations, she exonerated Chairman Benjamin Abalos, and other
COMELEC officials. Worse, she overturned her own Resolution7 which
found Commissioner Resureccion Borra liable for the said irregularities and
recommending his impeachment, thereby absolving everyone from and
negating the very existence of a crime This decision is obviously contrary to
the findings of both the Supreme Court as held in Information Technology
Foundation of the Philippines, supra, as well as the findings of the Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee.

48. Ombudsman Gutierrez simply ignored all the facts that clearly
implicated Chairman Abalos and the other COMELEC commissioners and
officials involved in the transaction. It must be reiterated, both the Supreme
Court and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee found that the entire bidding
process was rigged, thereby involving not only the members of the BAC,
but also the commissioners who approved the award.

49. Her refusal to investigate, her decision to exonerate those involved in

the irregularities, notwithstanding clear evidence establishing their criminal
liability and in stalling the investigations on the above-mentioned
irregularities, and, indicate that Ombudsman Gutierrez betrayed the public
trust reposed on her as the head of the agency which was created to act as
the “protector of the people” which “shall act promptly on complaints filed
in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
Government.”8

7 Dated 28 June 2006. A copy of the Press Release of the Office of the Ombudsman relative to the
Resolution recommending the impeachment of Commissioner Borra is hereto attached as Annex “C” and
made an integral part hereof.
8 Sec. 12, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution

27
 2. CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

THROUGH HER REPEATED FAILURES

AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN ACTING
UPON THE MATTERS BROUGHT BEFORE
HER OFFICE, OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ
VIOLATED SECTION 12 AND SECTION 13,
PARAGRAPHS 1, 2 AND 3, ARTICLE XI ON
WHICH HER CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY IS
ENSHRINED, AS WELL AS SECTION 16,
ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION,
WHICH MANDATES PROMPT ACTION
AND SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.

50. Under Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution, Ombudsman

Gutierrez, as the “protector of the people” has the duty to act
promptly on all complaints filed against public officials or employees
of the Government. Lamentably, Ombudsman Gutierrez has failed
miserably to live up to this constitutional mandate as discussed
above. She has in numerous instances failed to act promptly, if at all,
and has repeatedly invited suspicion of her protecting those charged
with wrongdoing, particularly former President Macapagal-Arroyo
and her associates – in blatant violation of constitutional role as an
independent investigating and prosecuting body.

51. This in turn, also constitutes Culpable Violation of the Constitution

particularly Sections 12 and 13 of Article XI:

Section 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the

people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the
result thereof.

28
 Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions, and duties:

1. Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or

omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.

2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official

or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite
any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.

3. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a

public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith.
(emphasis supplied)

52. It cannot be denied that it is incumbent upon Ombudsman Gutierrez

to act promptly and swiftly act upon all complaints filed before her
office, as a matter of both constitutional and statutory duty. Nothing
less will suffice if the constitutional mandates of maintaining honesty
and integrity in public service and ensuring that public office remains
a public trust are to be given life and meaning.

53. Likewise, under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, all persons
have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. It must be stressed that
whenever Ombudsman Gutierrez fails to act promptly on a case, it is
not only the right of the respondent or accused that is violated, but
also the right of the complainants, and more importantly, the right of

29
 the Filipino people. Needless to say, Ombudsman Gutierrez’s
inaction on complaints against erring public officials robs the public
of their right to see justice done and public wrongdoing punished. It
further erodes the public accountability and confidence in our
government officials and the offices they hold.

FORMS OF RELIEF PRAYED FOR

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Complainants pray for

the Impeachment of Respondent Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez
pursuant to the procedure laid down by Section 3, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution on Accountability of Public Officers, and that the Articles of
Impeachment be immediately transmitted to the Philippine Senate by the
Honorable House of Representatives.

Other forms of relief, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, 3 August 2010.

RENATO REYES DANILO RAMOS

Secretary General Secretary-General
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
4th Floor, Erythrina Building No. 20 Maaralin St.
No. 1, Maaralin cor. Matatag Streets, Bgy. Central District
Barangay Central, Quezon City Quezon City

30
JAMES TERRY RIDON ATTY. EDRE OLALIA
Chairperson Acting Secretary General
League of Filipino Students National Union of Peoples’
, Lawyers (NUPL)

FERDINAND R. GAITE MO. MARY JOHN MANANSAN

Chairperson, Confederation for Co-Chairperson
Unity, Recognition and PAGBABAGO
Advancement of Government
Employees (COURAGE)

31