Matrix for Impeachment

8/7/2019 Matrix for Impeachment

1/3

SYNOPSIS OF THE BAYAN IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT VS. OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ

GROUNDS FORIMPEACHMENT

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGATIONS MAIN EVIDENCE

Betrayayal ofPublic Trust

When theOmbudsmandeliberately fails orrefuses to act onthe complaintsfiled before heroffice; willfullyrefuses to filecharges in court;refuses toprosecute despiteadmission by apublic official to acrime; and abusesher discretion, theinevitableconclusion is thatthere existsprobable causefor theOmbudsman tobe impeached forbetrayal of public

trust.

1. OmbudsmanGutierrez grosslyand inexcusably

failed to act orrefused to act onthe complaints andrefused toprosecute publicofficials involved inthe P728Mfertilizer fund scamdespiteoverwhelmingevidence toestablish probablecause.

1. Since Ombudsman Gutierrezassumed office on December 2005,she refused to act on the

complaints for plunderfiled byAtty. Frank Chavez on May 26, 2004and Kilusang Magbubukid ngPilipinas on June 11, 2004 asprovided for in the OmbudsmansRules of Procedure [Sec. 4 Par. (b)of AO 7]. Respondents were not

informed or asked to file theircounter-affidavits

Complainants were notinformed of any action by theOmbudsman nor were asked tofile any pleading

2. The Ombudsman Gutierrez refusedto prosecute Bolante, Lorenzo et.al. despite overwhelming

evidence and repeatedrecommendations by the Senate,COA, and her own FieldInvestigation Office to prosecutesaid public officials.

1. Affidavit of Atty. Chavez dated May 26, 2004 which includes: Complaint for plunder filed May 26, 2004 Senate Committee on Agriculture and Food and Blue

Ribbon Report No. 54 dated Mar. 1, 2006 recommendingcharges against Bolante, et al furnished OMB Mar. 7, 2006

COA report recommending cases against Jocjoc et alsubmitted to OMB Mar. 29, 2006

OMB Filed Investigation Office report recommending filingof criminal and administrative cases against Bolante et aldated Jun. 20, 2006

OMB FIO report recommending filing of criminal andadministrative charges against involved local officials ofButuan City & private individuals dated Jul. 20, 2006

Senate Senate Committee Report No. 254 transmitted toOMB on February 2009

Petition for mandamus before the SC filed Oct. 8, 2007(G.R. No. 179752) for failure Ombudsman to act on thecomplaint.

2. Affidavit of Danilo Ramos dated Mar. 1, 2011 which includes: Complaint for plunder dated Jun. 11, 2004 Motion for Speedy Resolution filed w/ OMB on Jun. 2006 Certification from the Sandiganbayan dated Feb. 25, 2011

that no case have been filed vs. Bolante and Lorenzo re.the fertilizer fund scam.

1. Senate Committee Report No. 54 dated March 1, 2006furnished to the OMB on Mar. 7, 2006

2. COAs Report on the Audit of P728 Million GMA Farm InputFund dated March 29, 2006

3. OMB FIO report dated Jun. 20, 20064. OMB FIO report dated Jul. 20, 20065. Senate Senate Committee Report No. 254 transmitted to OMB

on February 2009


2/3

6. Certification from the Sandiganbayan dated Feb. 26, 2011 thatno case have been filed vs. Bolante and Lorenzo re. the fertilizerfund scam.

2. OmbudsmanGutierrez grosslyand inexcusablyfailed or refused

to charge andprosecute PNPDir. Eliseo De laPaz for violatingBangko SentralPilipinas (BSP)Circular No. 98 s.1995, as amendedby BSP CircularNo. 507 s. 2006 inrelation toRepublic Act 7653

(New Central BankAct)* despite hispublic admission inword and in deedand despiteoverwhelmingevidence toestablish probablecause asrecommended byinvestigationsconduected by theSenate and PNP.

* failure to declarebringing out of thecountry or exportingcurrency worth morethan US$ 10,000.00

1. Ombudsman Gutierrez refused tofile charges vs. de la Paz despiteoverwhelming eveidence andrepeated findings by the Senate,

the PNP-DIDM and PNP-CIDG thatGen. de la Paz violated BSPCircular No. 98 s. 1995, asamended by BSP Circular No. 507s. 2006 in relation to Republic Act7653 (New Central Bank Act) andrecommending that charges be filedagainst him.

2. Ombudsman Gutierrez refused tofile said charges vs. de la Paz

despite his public admission inword under oath before the Senateon Nov. 15, 2008, and in deed withhis return of the money in March2009

1. Sworn Statement of Mr. Ferdie Gaite which includes thefollowing: Senate Committee Report No. 229 dated November 13,

2008.

PNP-Directorate for Investigation and DetectiveManagement (DIDM) report dated Oct. 27, 2008 signed byChief Supt. Raul Bacalzo sent to the Ombudsman on Oct.31, 2008.

PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)investigation report dated Nov. 3, 2008 signed by Atty.Isagani R. Nerez and sent to the Ombudsman Nov. 4, 2008

2. Sworn Statement of Mr. Ferdie Gaite which includes thefollowing:

Certified True Copy of TSN of Nov. 15, 2008 hearing of theSenate Committee on Foreign Relations joint with theCommittee on Accountability of Public Officers andInvestigations (Blue Ribbon) where Gen. de la Paz, uponquestioning by Sen. Biazon, admitted he failed to declaremoney in excess of $10,000 when he left the country forMoscow on Oct. 2008.

PDI news report dated Mar. 3, 2009 that Gen. de la Pazcompleted the return of P6.9M confiscated from him byRussian airport authorities. This shows that he actuallybrought the money out since he returned it.


3/3

3. OmbudsmanGutierrez refusedto act on theSupreme Courtsdirective on theMega Pacific caseand laterabusedher discretion,

tantamount towhitewashing thecase, by absolvingall parties involvedin her Sept. 27,2006 supplementalresolution.

1. Ombudsman Gutierrez stubbornlyrefused to act on the Jan. 13, 2004SC ruling ordering her to investigatethe Mega Pacific case anddetermine the liabilities of thoseinvolved.

2. Ombudsman Gutierrez in factwhitewashed the findings of theSCs Jan. 13, 2004 ruling as wellas the Senate Blue RibbonCommittee report datedDecember 12, 2005 which foundseveral COMELEC officials andmembers of the Bids and AwardsCommittee liable for the illegal andnullified Mega Pacific contract.

1. Sworn Statement of Mr. Augusto Lagman which cites variousSupreme Court resolutions dated February 14, 2006, March 28,2006 and May 3, 2006 requiring the Ombudsman to show causewhy it should not be held in contempt of Court for its failure tofully comply with the Courts directive after more than two years.

1. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee report dated Dec. 12, 2005.2. Resolution by the Ombudsman dated June 28, 2006 in thecases of Kilosbayan v. Benjamin Abalos et al. and Pimentel v.Benjamin Abalos et al finding Borra, et. al. liable for the MegaPacific case.

3. Supplemental Resolution by the Ombudsman dated September27, 2006 absolving all parties involved in the Mega Pacific case.

4. Sworn Statement by Mr. Augusto Lagman, comparing officialrecords from the SCs Jan. 13, 2004 ruling and theOmbudsmans Sept. 27, 2006 supplemental resolution whichshows how the Ombudsman whitewashed the SCs findings onthe Mega Pacific case:

Contrary to SC findings, Ombudsman says Mega PacificConsortium is legal

Contrary to SC findings, Ombudsman says Mega Pacificsautomated counting machines (ACM) passed the accuracytest

Contrary to SC findings, Ombudsman says there is no iotaof evidence that the COMELEC committed grave abusiveactions that would make them criminally or administrativelyliable

Culpable Violation of the Constitution

In the cases cited above, because the Ombudsman deliberately failed or refused to act on the complaints filed before her office; willfully refused to filecharges in court; refused to prosecute despite admission by a public official to a crime; and abused her discretion, the inevitable conclusion is that there

exists probable cause for the Ombudsman to be impeached forculpably violating Section 12 and section 13, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article XI of

the Constitution, which defines her duties. There is exists probable cause for her to be impeached forculpably violating Section 16, Article III of the

Constitution, which mandates prompt action and speedy disposition of cases brought to her attention .

Documents

Matrix for Impeachment