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,

Dr. Carolina Araullo Chairperson

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, Dr. Carolina Araullo Chairperson 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

3
APPEARS to be ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER. In fact, 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

4
prosecution of the accused, and the ultimate facts in such
Information is generally written in the following manner:

“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);

5
 (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 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.

6
 “ 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. 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

7
 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:

(1) FERDINAND GAITE, Filipino, of legal age and Chairperson of

the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of
Government Employees (COURAGE);
(2) DR. CAROLINA ARAULLO Filipino, of legal age and
Chairperson 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.

8
 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.

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

9
 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 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

10
 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 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.

11
 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS AND RECITAL
OF FACTS

1. BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUST

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

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

12
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, which contains its findings on the
“Fertilizer scam” and the evidence supporting the same,
Respondent Ombudsman has not only inexcusably delayed
the investigation but 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

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

13
 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. 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.”

14
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

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.

15
 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:

(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.”

16
(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.

(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”.

17
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
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

18
 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 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:

19
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:
(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

20
 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:
(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

21
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 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.

22
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 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.
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

23
 December 1995 and BSP circular 308 as amended 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

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.

4
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.

24
 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 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

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

25
 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

26
 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 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
6
A copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof.

27
 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 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
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.

28
 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

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. 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.

8
Sec. 12, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution

29
 51. 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.

52. 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 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.

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

Quezon City, Metro Manila, 3 August 2010.

30
DR. CAROL ARAULLO MARY JOHN MANANZAN
Chairperson, Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (BAYAN)
4th Floor, Erythrina Building
No. 1, Maaralin cor. Matatag Streets,
Barangay Central, Quezon City

DANILO RAMOS ATTY. EDRE OLALIA

Secretary General, Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP)
No. 20 Maaralin Street,
Barangay Central, Quezon City
Acting Secretary General
National Union of Peoples’
Lawyers (NUPL)
No. 1 Maaralin cor. Matatag
Streets, Barangay Central,
Quezon City

FERDINAND R. GAITE JAMES TERRY RIDON

Chairperson, Confederation for Chairperson,
Unity, Recognition and League of Filipino Students
Advancement of Government
Employees (COURAGE)
No. 118, Scout Rallos Extension,
Barangay Sacred Heart, Quezon City

31
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I/WE, COMPLAINANTS., after having been duly sworn in

accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. I/WE am/are the Complainants in the captioned case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Impeachment

Complaint;

3. I have read the contents of the foregoing Impeachment

Complaint and the allegations therein are true and correct
of our own knowledge or based on authentic records; and

4. No other action or proceeding involving the same issues has

been commenced in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or in any other tribunal or agency; to the best of
my knowledge or based on authentic records, no such
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or in any other tribunal or agency. If I
should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been
filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or in any other tribunal or agency, I shall notify or
cause to be notified the Honorable Court thereof within five
(5) days from such notice.

____________________
Affiant

32
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _________ 2010
in ____________, affiants exhibiting to me his/her/their Community Tax
Certificates No. __________, issued on ___________ at ___________; and
competent evidence of his/her their identity bearing his/her/their picture
and signature, __________ No. __________, issued by the ____________.

Doc. No.______;
Page No.______;
Book No.______;
Series of 2010.

33