Sunteți pe pagina 1din 23

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 corruption
1


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.
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 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:
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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;

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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;

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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)
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 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).

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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."

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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.
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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.
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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.
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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.

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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.
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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 2014
7
, 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.
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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 Philippines
8
:

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).
Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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

Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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



Verified Impeachment Complaint vs. President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
YOUTH ACT NOW, et al vs. Aquino, 22 July 2014
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

S-ar putea să vă placă și