Republic of the Philippines)Quezon City    ) S.S.

SWORN STATEMENT

I, RENATO REYES, JR. Filipino, of legal age, with office address at Erithryna Bldg., 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Quezon City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the same Renato Reyes, Jr. who is among the complainants in the impeachment complaint (“Impeachment Complaint”) filed against the Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez before the House of Representatives last August 3, 2010.

2. I affirm and reiterate our claim that the incumbent Ombudsman has miserably failed to live up to the role of Ombudsman during the five 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 would not be acted upon in a just manner in violation of her duty under Art. XI of the Constitution to “act promptly” on any complaint and investigate any act or omission of a public official “which appears illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient”.

3. The Filipino people deserve an Ombudsman who performs her constitutional mandate to protect them from grafters and corrupt public officials, not someone who condones – and in essence protects – the very thieves in government 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. We deserve no less.

4. We reiterate our accusation that Ombudsman Gutierrez is guilty of committing impeachable acts of gross betrayal of the public trust and culpable violations of the Constitution. She committed betrayal of public trust through her gross inexcusable delay, inaction, failure to prosecute and worse, willful refusal to prosecute Usec. Jocelyn Bolante, Sec. Luis “Cito” Lorenzo and others involved in the so-called Fertilizer Fund Scam despite the blatant anomalous transactions revealed in Senate Committee Report No. 54 dated March 1, 2006, the Commission on Audit’s “Report on the Audit of P728 Million GMA Farm Input Fund” dated March 29, 2006, and the separate complaints for plunder filed by Atty. Francisco I. Chavez on May 26, 2004 and the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) on June 11, 2004 which remain unacted by the Ombudsman after six years.

5. The evidence of blatantly anomalous transactions were contained in Senate Report No. 54 where the Senate recommended, among other things, the filing of plunder and other criminal and administrative charges against Usec. Jocelyn Bolante, Sec. Luis “Cito” Lorenzo, Usec. Ibarra Poliquit, Usec. Belinda Gonzales, Asec. Jose Montes, and all DA Regional Directors who participated in the illegal transactions for violating Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.

6. It is bad enough that Ombudsman Gutierrez failed to act on the two pending complaints filed as early as 2004 by Atty. Chavez and the KMP. What is worse is that the subsequent, separate investigations by the Senate and the COA in March 1 and 29, 2006, respectively, were also ignored by the Ombudsman. As of February 25, 2011, no case has been filed by the

1

Ombudsman against the two key players in the Fertilizer Fund Scam – Bolante and Lorenzo – as certified by Atty. Renato Bocar, executive clerk of the Sandiganbayan.

7. This inordinate and deliberate delay, failure to prosecute and file plunder charges against Bolante, Lorenzo, et. al. despite two pending complaints for plunder before respondent and voluminous evidences provided her by the Senate and COA investigations manifest gross inexcusable inaction or negligence and worse, willful refusal to prosecute. She clearly violated her constitutional duty to promptly investigate complaints and betrayed the public trust.

8. Ombudsman Gutierrez also committed betrayal of public trust when she did not prosecute Philippine National Police (PNP) Director Eliseo Dela Paz for violating Bangko Sentral Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 98 s. 1995, as amended by BSP Circular No. 507 s. 2006 in relation to Republic Act 7653 (New Central Bank Act), which prohibits the taking out of the country of currency in excess of US$10,000 without declaring the same to the Philippine Customs.

9. Gen. de la Paz, who was the Comptroller of the Philippine National Police (PNP) at the time, was held at the 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. The incident was later dubbed the “Euro generals” incident and was immediately investigated by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Committee on Public Order and Safety, the PNP, the National Police Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman.

10. In Senate Committee Report No. 229 dated November 13, 2008, the Senate stated in clear and unequivocal terms its finding that the act or omission of Gen. de la Paz was a clear violation of said BSP circulars and recommended the filing of criminal charges to the Office of the Ombudsman.

11. In its own fact-finding report, the PNP Directorate for Intelligence and Detective Management (DIDM) dated October 27, 2008 recommended the filing of charges against Gen. de la Paz for disregarding said BSP Circulars in violation of Sec. 36 of Republic Act 7653 and other illegal acts. Another PNP investigation report, this time by the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) dated November 3, 2008, established that Gen. de la Paz failed to declare the currency he brought out of the country, with the Bureau of Customs even issuing a certification to this effect, and recommended the same charges be filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.

12. In fact, Gen, de la Paz was found by the above investigating bodies to have committed other illegal acts in relation to his trip to Moscow with the other “euro generals” including irregularities in the withdrawal of PNP funds,

13. Despite Gen. de la Paz’s admission before the Senate, and the subsequent investigation reports by the Senate, the PNP-DIDM and PNP-CIDG all in the period October to November 2008 and all providing evidence of Gen. de la Paz’s violation of said BSP Circulars and recommending that charges be filed by the Office of the Ombudsman for the same, Ombudsman Gutierrez still refused to prosecute Gen. de la Paz. A certification dated February 28, 2011 by Atty. Renato Bocar, executive clerk of the Sandiganbayan attests that no charges have been filed against Gen. de la Paz more than two years after the incident.

13. In the face of an admission of guilt and clear evidence of Gen. de la Paz’s violation of the law, the Ombudsman’s failure and worse, willful refusal to prosecute Gen. de la Paz constitutes a Betrayal of Public Trust and a violation of her Constitutional duties.

14. Ombudsman Gutierrez also betrayed the public trust through her deliberate delay and inaction, and later whitewashing of the case involving Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr., Commissioner Resureccion Borra, and others involved in the illegal,

2

rigged bidding and awarding of the COMELEC’s automation election project to Mega Pacific, Consortium. 15. The Supreme Court in its decision and resolution in the case of “Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines et al vs. Commission on Elections et al (GR No. 159139, January 13, 2004)” voided Comelec Resolution No. 6074 dated April 15, 2003 and pointed out anomalies in the transaction entered into by Comelec officials. In the same decision, the Supreme Court ordered the Ombudsman to determine the criminal liability of the public officials and private individuals involved. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, in its report dated December 12, 2005, came out with a similar conclusion finding several COMELEC officials and members of Bids and Awards Committee liable for the illegal and nullified contract. Respondent Ombudsman was appointed to position in December 1, 2005 and could not have been unaware of the Senate Report.

16. Despite clear and unequivocal findings that illegal acts have been committed, the Ombudsman never gave an iota of value to and totally disregarded the findings of the Supreme Court and Senate. The unexplained lack of action prompted the Supreme Court to issue a Resolution dated February 14, 2006 requiring the Ombudsman to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of Court for its failure to fully comply with the Court’s directive. Still, the Ombudsman did not act and even resisted the Court’s order, invoking its autonomy as an independent body. This prompted the Court to issue another Resolution dated March 28, 2006 and again on May 3, 2006 ordering the Ombudsman, under pain of contempt, to report to the Court on June 30, 2006 on her determination as to whether a probable cause exists against any public official or private individual involved in the Mega Pacific contract.

17. Until the last minute, Ombudsman Guttierez refused to abide by the Court’s order, invoking both its autonomy and the need for more time to investigate despite the fact that a year and six months had already passed since the Supreme Court’s ruling nullifying the Mega Pacific contract. When the Ombudsman finally came out with her Resolution on the investigations dated June 28, 2006, she held only Borra liable and exonerated Abalos and a number of Comelec officials involved in the irregularity, contrary to the findings and recommendations of both the Supreme Court as well as the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

18. Worse, in a shocking turn of events three months later on September 27, 2006, the Ombudsman reversed its June 28, 2006 resolution and issued a new resolution absolving Borra and all respondents involved in the Mega Pacific anomaly of all administrative and criminal liabilities "for lack of probable cause." The resolution also nullified the factual findings that could have been used by the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against Borra.

19. Keeping in mind that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect, and that probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, the Ombudsman’s resolution absolving all parties involved in the rigged bidding and other anomalies of the Mega Pacific contract came as a shock. While the Ombudsman did not dispute the Supreme Court’s findings of anomalies in the COMELEC’s automation project, in essence it came up with the illogical conclusion that nobody was accountable for the said anomalies. This is nothing less than a whitewash. 20. The Ombudsman’s gross inexcusable delay and stubborn refusal to act on the Supreme Court’s orders, and later her decision to wrongly exonerate Abalos, Borra and others involved in the irregularities notwithstanding the fact that, hundreds of millions of pesos of public funds have been lost in the transaction, indicate that Ombudsman Gutierrez committed a gross Betrayal of Public Trust.

3

21. Though her repeated inexcusable delays in carrying out her duties, failure or willful refusal to prosecute suspects, and deliberate whitewashing and cover-up of crimes involving officials of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as manifested in the above paragraphs, Ombudsman Gutierrez grossly 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.

22. Ombudsman Gutierrez miserably failed to live up to her 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.

I am executing this affidavit in support of the Impeachment Complaint and respectfully reiterate our prayer for this Honorable Committee to impeach respondent Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby set my hand this __ day of __________ 2011 in Quezon City.

 

  RENATO REYES, JR.

Affiant  

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO personally before me, this ____ day of ____________ 2011 in Quezon City, by the affiant.  

Doc. No.Page No.Book No.Series of 2011

4