Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Bagong Alyansang Makabayan et al vs President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

[Note: I am uploading here in full the text of the impeachment complaint filed today by Bayan Muna in the hope that this will contribute to the national discussion on such an important issue. Here is the Executive Summary, followed by the impeachment suit. – Raissa ]

IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT

Executive Summary

Nature of the Action.

This impeachment complaint is initiated against President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

The basic thesis is that BS Aquino III, as President and Chief Executive, through the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), intentionally and knowingly centralized and controlled public funds through disingenuous acts and practices and turned it into his own Presidential pork barrel in violation of the Constitution and existing laws. These acts constitute a usurpation of the power of the Legislature and a mockery of the principle of separation of powers and checks-and-balances in government.

Complainants.

Twenty eight (28) individuals signed the impeachment complaint. The complainants include the petitioners in the Supreme Court case questioning the legality of the DAP led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE) and Atty. Jose Malvar Villegas, Jr., leaders of peoples’ organizations, church people and netizens. They are initiating the action as citizens and taxpayers.

Grounds.

I. Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

President Aquino culpably violated the Constitution when he knowingly, willfully and intentionally usurped the powers of the Legislature and undermined the system of checks and balances when he transgressed explicit provisions of the 1987 Constitution such as: Article VI Sections 25(5) or the no transfer of appropriations provision and 29(1) or the Legislature’s power of the purse, and of Article VII, Section 17 or the provision on the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. These acts patently violate the principle of separation of powers.

The unconstitutional and void acts include premature pooling of funds that are not in reality savings, the cross-border transfer of funds to augment the appropriation of other offices outside the Executive Branch, funding of projects that are not covered by the GAA and the use of unprogrammed funds.

II. President Aquino committed the impeachable offense of betrayal of public trust through the following acts:

(a) By perpetuating and exacerbating the corruption-ridden and patronage-driven system of pork barrel when he created a new and bigger presidential pork barrel through DAP, illegally centralizing P144 Billion in public funds and rechanneling them to his pet projects and favored politicians such as the P17.3 billion additional pork for lawmakers, P6.5 billion additional pork for LGUs, and local projects such as the P2 billion roadworks in his home province on Tarlac;
(b) By committing tyrannical abuse of power when he usurped the Legislature’s power of the purse in violation of Sections 29(1) and 25(5) Article VI of the 1987 Constitution;
(c) By violating his oath of office to faithfully and conscientiously fulfill his duties, preserve and defend the Constitution and execute the laws when he violated the Constitution, the General Appropriations Act and the Revised Penal Code;
(d) By perpetrating at least 116 counts of the crime of technical malversation;
(e) By committing the crime of corruption of public officials when he approved the release of additional billions of pork barrel projects to senator-judges to unduly influence the impeachment trial against former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

On the good faith defense. President Aquino cannot invoke or feign good faith or regularity of his acts since he created, implemented, and defended the DAP and all unconstitutional acts under it. He approved, ordered and committed the acts and practices declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. His 12 years of experience as part of the governmental branch with the sole power of appropriation negates any pretension that he does not know the legal implications of his actions.

President Aquino cannot invoke the Revised Administrative Code as a justification for the legality of the DAP. Section 39 of the Revised Administrative Code is completely repugnant to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and was effectively repealed in the Supreme Court in the Demetria ruling.

Contrary to the myth that President Aquino makes us want to believe, DAP is not beneficial to the economy. These “economic benefits” were only alleged by President Aquino but also been proven false by various studies. DAP is essentially presidential pork barrel and can never be beneficial to the poor and the economy.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) assisted complainants in preparation of this impeachment complaint. # # #

Comments

  1. Limang taon na ang nakararan nang mabuhay muli ang pag-asa na makaahon ang bayan mula sa pagkakalugmok sa bulok na sistema ng pamamahala. Mula sa pagluluksa sa kamatayan ng kanyang ina, hinimok natin si Noynoy na pamunuan ang laban ng bayan. Hindi nya pinangarap na maging pangulo, ngunit hiningi ng pagkakataon at panahon ang kanyang pagsisilbi. Inihalal sya ng bayan, at iniatang sa kanyang balikat ang maraming suliranin ng ating bayan.

    Hindi tayo tinalikuran ni Noynoy. Totoo, mayroon siyang mga pagkukuluang. Mayroon siyang mga tinuran at ginawa na di sang-ayon sa ating kagustuhan. Ngunit dapat din natin alalahanin na kahit mismo sa kaliit-liitang barangay ay mayroong di nasisiyahan sa panunungkulan ng kanilang pinuno, na di lahat ng pangangailangan ng mga nasasakupan ay sapat na natutugunan, na di lahat ng katuwang sa panunungkulan ay kasing galing at kasing-sipag ng pinuno. Paano pa kaya sa isang bansang binubuo ng pitong-libo’t isang daang mga pulo at isang milyong mamamayan? Nagsisikap ang ating pangulo, ngunit hindi sa lahat ng pagkakataon ay nagtatagumpay siya.

    Tayo ang tumalikod kay Noynoy at sa adhikaing nagbunsod sa atin upang siya ay iluklok bilang pangulo ng ating bayan. Ang sabi natin sa kanya noon, “Noy, hindi ka nag-iisa.” Ngunit nang dumating na ang mga mabibigat na suliranin, marami sa atin ang nanahimik na lamang at di kumibo. Ang sabi natin sa kanya, “Noy, umpisahan mo lang.” Ngunit ngayong siya ay tinutuligsa ng kabi-kabila, kasama natin ang mga kritiko sa pagmamadali na maituwid sa loob ng apat na taon ang mga kabaluktutang hinubog at pinagtibay sa loob apatnapung taon. Tinatanong natin ang mga mahihirap na di pa rin nakakaahon kung may nagawa ba si Noynoy para sa kanila. Tinanong din ba natin ang mga mahihirap na dahil sa kanilang pagsisikap at sa suporta ng pamahalaan ay nakaaahon na sa kahirapan? Totoong marami pa ang naiiwan sa pagtamasa ng pag-unlad, at di sila dapat pabayaan. Ngunit totoo rin naman na marami na rin ang tumatamasa sa kaunlaran.

    Hindi ako sang-ayon sa lahat ng ginawa at desisyon ni Noynoy. Maraming pagkakataon na ninais ko na sana ay ibang landas ang tinahak nya. Ngunit di ko rin maikakaila na malaki na rin ang ipinagbago ng ating bansa. Ang totoo, ang agam-agam sa aking damdamin ay kung paano maipagpapatuloy ang mga nasimulang pagbabago. Tumanaw man ako sa malapit o malayong panahon ay wala akong maaninag na kasiguruhan na di na tayo muling babalik sa ating pinanggalingang pamamaraan. Ngunit nananalig pa rin ako kay Noynoy hindi dahil wala ng ibang pagpipilian na pumalit sa kanya. Nananalig pa rin ako sa kanya dahil siya ang halal ng bayan, at iniluklok sya bilang pangulo hindi dahil pinangarap nya ito kundi ito ang hinihingi ng pagkakataon at panahon. Tungkulin natin bilang mamamayan ang samahan siya, at ituwid kung kinakailangan, sa kanyang adhikaing mapaunlad ang ating bayan.

    Dalawang taon na lamang ang nalalabi sa kanyang panunungkulan. Ang aking hiling ay nawa’y mas paigtingin pa ang pagbabago sa pamahalaan at sa lipunan. Marami pa ang dapat gawin, at ang mga ito ay di maiisakatuparan ng iisang tao lamang. Hindi pa huli upang manumbalik ang pag-asa at pagkakaisa. Hawanin natin ang mga talahib at balakid upang ang mga susunod na salin-lahi ay patuloy na tumahak sa daang matuwid. Hindi sapat ang humiyaw at magsabing may mga ahas, o mababangis na hayop, o may bangin sa dulo ng daang inihahanda. Lahat tayo ay dumampot ng pang-gapas, hayaang masugatan ang mga braso at binti, at sama-samang ihanda ang daan tungo sa maunlad at mapayapang umaga para sa lahat.

    “Ako’y mamamatay, ngayong namamalas
    na sa silanganan ay namamanaag
    yaong maligayang araw na sisikat
    sa likod ng luksang nagtabing na ulap.”

    Gat Jose Rizal, sa kanyang “Huling Paalam”

        • Meaning that it is perfectly alright to transfer the fund of the judiciary to DOJ which is tasked to build the structure and then transfer its ownership, operation and maintenance to the judiciary. A perfect example of legitimate cross border transfer of appropriation and interdependence of the two branches of government.

        • Whereas, under the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into by the COURT and the DOJ on 09 June 2000, the ownership of the HOJ that have been completely constructed under the JUSIP, including the land on which they have been constructed and the improvements thereon, had been transferred to the COURT;

          Whereas, the General Appropriations Act allocates funds for the maintenance of the HOJ constructed under the JUSIP and places such allocation under the appropriations for the Judiciary;

          I believe it’s Judiciary money appropriated to the Judiciary under JUSIP Agreement by the GAA.

          I also read somewhere that de Lima presented her DOJ budget during budget deliberations EXCLUDING the JUSIP appropriation. I read it somewhere in DBM web site but have no time to re-search it again to give the link.

          We’ll just wait…but allowing good faith on the part of the SC, there was no transfer of funds according to the SC.

        • when the SC is involved, good faith is presumed but when it comes to the executive, bad faith is presumed? i think that is biased.

    • Offer of pooled savings does not conflict with the MR. So there is no misinformation at all. Those thinking of PNoy misinformation lacks understanding of the situation. I am interested to know how the misinformation of Pnoy, if any, happened.

      • Hi Rene, could you please have a look at p.27, sec 80 of the MR. It looks to me like a different or preceding request/ resolution to the Dec 2013 turned down request and subsequent offer from Abad made supposedly in Jan 2014. What do you think?

        • On December 23, 2013 the SC wrote DBM requesting to withdraw the realignment of 100M from Manila Hall of Justice budget to Malabon Hall of justice. In its stead the SC requested to extend for one year more the 100M budget for Manila HJ which was set to expire end of 2013. But DBM turned down such request for extension due to GAA limits and instead offered 100M from pooled savings in a letter dated January 10, 2014 to avert non-use of said 100M. However, the SC in a resolution dated January 21, 2014 did not accept the offer of help by DBM. Maybe due to the on-going DAP case.

        • My point is that they are bringing out an altogether different case to what was cited in the MR as an incident of a cross transfer undertaking that was eventually abandoned but was nonetheless conceived and may have pushed through if it hadb’t been for the DAP controversy that started after the resolution was made. What is their response to this particular case, that is what I am interested in.

        • P.s. The case cited in the MR had tp do with the transfer of P100M pesos in the DOJ budget to the judiciary for the said Malabon Hall of Justice.

        • That 100M DOJ budget was for Manila Hall of Justice that includes SC and DOJ offices. SC requested DBM to realign it to judiciary for its Malabon project.. Apparently DBM heeded the request, but due to DAP case the SC changed its mind. DBM offered a solution to help but was turned down. It was an offer that resulted from SC ‘s initiative of cross border transfer.

  4. Amidst the sounds and fury on DAP, it is very clear that PNoy is merely aiming to cause the deletion of the presumption of “No Good Faith” by the SC which is against the constitutional presumption of innocence and regularity of official functions.

    Those who still insist that the SC decision did not prejudge the DAP authors, please read page 90 of the decision in conjunction with Justice Brion’s separate opinion. In page 58 Brion said that as to the DBM Secretary “the evidence before us, at the very least, shows that his actions negate presumption of good faith.” In page 60 Brion cited Carpio’s findings that “Secretary Abad could not gave been in good faith.”

    Carpio, Brion, Bersamin and the SC were totally wrong in presuming that the DAP authors could not invoke the presumption of good faith. That is before the prosecution had established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt “prima facie.” Meaning that PNoy and Abad were guilty if they fail to controvert the prosecution’s evidence even if the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence.

    There are two steps before the authors could get off the hook by invoking good faith. First, the prosecution must establish their guilt. Second, the authors must prove their good faith. But the SC had already ruled that the authors could not be presumed in good faith. Meaning that even if the prosecution failed to establish the authors’ guilt prima facie, the authors have to prove good faith because the presumption of good faith does not apply to them. Meaning again that the court cannot dismiss the case for lack of evidence right away because the authors have to present evidence still to prove their innocence and regularity of official actions.

    The SC decision on DAP made our constitution, particularly the bill of rights, topsy-turvy. If that was not incompetence, that must definitely be malice or bad faith on the part of the SC.

    The decision of the SC to set aside the presumption of innocence and regularity of official functions is the ONLY issue on DAP as far as PNoy is concerned.

    • The LAW of any DEMOCRATIC Country should be for the GOOD of the PEOPLE, this is Law of God in any Books of revelation Al Qur-an Al Kareem, the Holy Bible or the Torah.

      if PNOY and his cabinet members did plundering on the DAP, the PLUNDERERS should be responsible. At the moment, DAP has help in Philippine current growth. This GOOD for the PEOPLE, why in the world of LAW, this is Illegal?

      The new Bayan Muna can never be new, they are the same people who in time of service for the people keeps on ignoring the good governance and always in the street to bring down the government. They wanted their government to be established, what is their government??? Does FREEDOM exists in their government if ever it is establish?

  5. 3rd impeachment complaint against to be filed by Gabriela, EDCA having violated provisions of the Constitution. The Reds are flaring, all impeachment complaints sponsored by the reds.

    Signs of the time?

    • Yes, all strikes on the streets anti government from Mcoy to present government are REDS.

      How much strong are the REDS right now? 50% of the Philippine population? Are these REDS FINANCED by the RED China???

      I believed REDS number are very few considering the FREEDOM LOVING Filipinos anywhere. If they want a communist government, they need to do SOCIAL WORK, do you see REDS during CALAMITIES??? Did they help establish GROWTH in our COUNTRY? WHAT ARE THEY DOING??? I did not see any advertisement of their GOOD DEEDS, NOTHING AT ALL, It is a SHAMEFUL act to be in the government service but do nothing but NOISE.

  6. Isa pang paalala…

    Si Sol-Gen Jardeleza ay nagkukumahog para mapasama ang pangalan niya sa JBC short list of nominees to replace Abad, the Justice, not the Secretary.

    Nakahanda na ba ang appointment letter niya para sa Supreme Court?

    Ang MR ba ay delaying tactics???

    …Ito ang malikot na kaisipan ng mga barbero sa isang barberya…

    • Kala ko nga yung MR ipapasok pag napalitan na si Justice Abad sa August para maging 5 na kay PNoy na appointees. Pano kung ilabas agad ang decision para farewell decision ni Justice Abad sa importanteng kaso? Abangan.

      • May proseso pa…kaya matagal pa ang DAP decision at baka mauna pa ang Jardeleza appeal.

        (Kung si Jardeleza…o si Grace Tan…ang mahirang — pume-placing ang billiard player na si PNoy.)

        Hihintayin pa ang mga petitioners against DAP to answer PNoy’s MR. Usually last minute ang filing niyan gaya nang ginawa ni PNoy.

        • Pag si Jardeleza, inhibit din sya sa MR kasi SG sya during DAP trial, so bawas lang ang boto hindi dagdag.

          Dapat ginawa ni PNoy nong lumabas yung decision sa DAP ay “speak softly, carry big stick” o big stick policy, ala Teddy Roosevelt. Mas effective yun, kasi hindi confrontational pero pailalim. Ngayon, lantaan na ang pressure: JDF Fund, SALN…baka mas lalong magmatigas ang SC…

        • Strategic ang kay Jardeleza o Tan…

          Para sa iba pang kaso at marahil pang-after 2016. Though ang pangalawa ay malayong foresight na tingin ko wala sila n’yan.

  7. To readers of the Comments Section…

    Please click the arrow for more comments located below this page.

  8. I wish you write a story about the SC justices not willing to submits their SALNs?

    • Title: “The Coronation Part 2”
      Subtitle: “Ang Pagbubukas Din Ng Bank Accounts”

      [Again, if everyone is still up to it, please supply in the blanks below the title for the next blog post on the SC justices’ ‘refusal’ to disclose their SALNs. The most shameful to the SC (with boomerang to the Executive and Judiciary) the better…and the winner too!]

      _______________

      _______________

      _______________

      _______________

      …

      • …supreme alone and never = SC refusal on the SALNs
        …shameful and looking none = ditto.
        …sobra ang linis namin = otra vez.
        …suspect and leery Ncomes = hahaha

  9. “Nadiin pa ang paninindigan natin na naaayon sa batas ang DAP dahil ang mismong Korte Suprema ay sumang-ayon sa ganitong klaseng mekanismo,”

    @sir baycas

    Tawag yata dio ay “argumentum ab auctoritate” at hindi peanut butter defense.

    • Bagama’t may mga fallacies ang Falasyo, ang magandang kalalabasan dito ay UPHEAVAL na ‘maaaring’ pagmulan ng lasting na pagbabago.

      Ang default Constitutional instruction ay 3 branches of government functioning in a COORDINATED fashion WITHOUT X-border transfer of funds.

      Ang norm which is NOT necessarily consistent with the LAWS of the land ay 3 branches of government COORDINATING WITH X-border transfer of funds. Maliwanag na political patronage sans borders. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Porking, in short, sa No Porking Zone.

      After this upheaval, thanks very much to PNoy’s revelations in his speeches and in the MR, there will be a REBOOT of the system.

      Sans PiDAF, sans BADAP, and sans JaDaF…

      • The Aquino’s are really fond of REVOLUTIONS…

        But this time, within the system, NOT the EDSA Revolution type.

        CIA* to PNoy. Kudos!

        I expect this REBOOT will be mentioned in the SONA on Monday…

        No PiDAF, no BADAP, and soon, no JaDaF.

        With anti-political dynasty law, with FOI, with etc., etc., etc. that are mechanized to fight against graft and corruption.

        ANG SANGA-SANGANG DAANG MATUTUWID na walang panama ang mga tulad ni Binay na mamuno sa Pilipinas.

        —–
        *congratulations in advance

        • don’t think it will happen. pnoy lost clear thinking already when he justifies his own violations with violations of the court. he could be in too deep with this congress.

        • The Congress that most people love to hate now…

          And yet who is hiding behind its skirt because the pork (PDAF) was already advanced AND even augmented (DAP)???

          Ta daah…

          PNoy, that’s for sure!

        • Now, why didn’t he just asked for a supplemental budget in the first place kung kakampi niya ang Kongreso?

          Kulang ba ang grease noong mga unang araw ng DAP? Aba, eh, malamang!

          Dahil sa MR kalakaran pala ang “X-borders.”

          The NORM prevails even if it is WRONG. And it brought us too many Robin Hoods in government whose motto is “THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.”

        • Aw come on, @Rene-Ipil, kaya nga I try as much as possible to put apostrophes or quotation marks on the word ‘X-border’ which I coined.

          It is because it means it is the phrase that the SC had initially struck down in the phrase pertaining to savings in 25(5) Art. VI as unconstitutional.

          I hope you read all my entries on this DAP case because, while I have already concluded with finality, I will also wait for the SC decision in its final resolution. I am sure @raissa will post the result in the future. Just allow me to bash the current administration prior to the SONA…please. Baka ma-edit pa nila ang sasabihin ni PNoy, i.e., kung binabasa nila ang isip ni Baycas at Mang Bernie.

          Incidentally, I didn’t buy PNoy’s rationalization in the MR.

      • Baycas, yung “X-Border transfer of fund” ay hindi ipinagbabawal ng constitution in general. Ang bawal ay “transfer of appropriated fund” or fund covered by appropriations.. Pero ang savings ay hindi na covered ng appropriations. Appropriations and savings are two different animals. Cross border transfer of saved fund is authorized by AC. Only cross border transfer of fund still appropriated is prohibited by the constitution.

        The declaration by the SC of the unconstitutionality of all cross border transfer of funds is not yet final until the MR has been resolved. So we cannot yet cite the DAP decision as case law or controlling jurisprudence.

  10. THE STORY OF THE “PORKING POLICE” AND THE ‘NO PORKING ZONE”
    .

    ASYONG SALONGA parked in the “No Porking Zone”. He didn’t get a “No Porking Ticket.”

    GLORIA LABANDERA also parked in the “No Porking Zone.” She didn’t get a ticket, either.

    NOYPI parked in the “No Porking Zone” and got a ticket from the Porking Police.

    NOYPI’s passenger protested and asked “why didn’t you give “Porking Tickets” to GLORIA and ASYONG?”

    The Porking Police said, “That’s peanut butter defense, I don’t have to answer that.”

    At that point NOYPI remarked, “But I see that you are also parked in the “No Porking Zone”.

    The Porking Police said, “I’m only parked there to enforce the “No Porking Zone”.

    Well, I, the pedestrian, can accuse the Porking Police of any of these four things:

    1. Dereliction of duty.
    2. Selective enforcement of the law
    3. Entrapment.
    4. Abuse of enforcement power

  11. My Decision: DAP is Unconstitutional due to Non-conformance
    –
    If I were one of the SC Justices, I will rule that the executive, PNoy Administration, violated the constitution as Procedural Violation (example GAA), but not as Criminal Violation (Plunder, Malversation, etc.), due to Non-Conformance.

    I view the constitution as those two parts, the Procedural and Criminal.

    Para sa karamihan na nagtratrabaho sa mga malalaking kumpanya na may tinatatawag na merong Standard Procedures or Business Processes, alam natin na may mga procedures tayo at may quality check kung papaano natin gawin ang ating trabaho. Pero meron din sa Employees Handbook na pag nagnakaw ka, terminated ka kaagad!

    Halimbawa, nasasaad sa isang procedure na bawal mong i-transfer ang isang appropriated or budgeted na pondo sa isang departamento sa ibang departamento. Halimbawa, from Executive to Legislative or Executive to Judiciary.

    May bagong Manager1 (PNoy) sa isang departamento (Executive), at akala nya ay pwede dahil sa records na hawak nya ay ginawa rin ito ng pinalitan nyang Manager at iba pang Managers sa ibang departamento (Judiciary).

    Pero merong mga empleyado (Enrile, Jinggoy, Bong) na nagnakaw ng pondo (PDAF! DAP?), nahuli kasabwat ang supplier (Napoles) at kinasuhan ng Kumpanya (People of the Philippines) at sila ay naaresto dahil sa matinding ebidensya na hawak ng mga pulis (Ombudsman) at ang kaso ay nasa korte (Sandiganbayan) na. Ang isa sa mga empleyado ay anak ng dating Manager ng Kompanya (Erap) na napatalsik dahil sa anomalya, napasama ang anak sa kaso pero naabswelto, so tuloy pa rin sya sa trabaho. Masama ang loob nong isang empleyado (Jinggoy) kaya sabi nya sa mga kapwa nya empleyado (Publiko at Media) bakit kami lang, hindi lang naman kami (Opposition Lawmakers) ang gumagawa ng ganyan (Pagnanakaw), yung mga tauhan din ni Manager1 (Admin Lawmakers at mga Cabinet).

    So yung mga kakampi (Belgica) ng empleyadong (Jinggoy) natanggal at iba pang mga empleyado (Civic Organizations) ay naghain (petition) ng reklamo sa Quality Department(QD) (SC) na ang ginawa ni Manager1 ay nag violate ng company procedures (Constitution) sa maling pagamit ng pondo (DAP).

    Nagdesisyon ang QD (SC) partially mali ang pagkagamit dahil na violate nya ang standard procedure (GAA).

    Tama ba ang desisyon (Audit Report) ng Quality Department(SC)? Sa akin ay Tama! Nag-violate nga ng standard procedure si Manager1 PNoy dahil ang interpretasyon ng QD(SC), hindi nya pwedeng i-transfer yung Pondo sa ibang departamento (Legislative or Judiciary).

    Nagbunyi ang mga petitioners, mali si Manager1 PNoy. At mabilis pa sa alas kwatro, naghain din yung iba na dapat daw eh tanggalin sa pwesto si Manager1 PNoy dahil ayun sa QD (SC) nag-violate ng procedure katulad din nila Jinggoy, Enrile, Bong.

    Napikon si Manager1 at sabi mali daw ang Quality Department (SC) dahil sa mga records na nakalap nya, ganoon din ang ginawa ng Manager sa QD(SC). Eh bakit yung mismong dapat alam ang Standard Procedure ay nag-violate din?

    Sa quality procedure, may tinatawag na Audit Review (Appeal or Motion for Reconsideration), dito may pagkakataon i-clarify kung yung desisyon (Audit Report) ay clarado dahil minsan yung mga Auditors (SC) parang cryptic magsulat at nalalagay sa alanganin yung na-Audit (PNoy).

    So merong Audit Review na nagaganap ngayon sa SC, ang tanong kung ikaw ang isa sa mga Justices sa Korte Suprema ano ang gagawin mo?

    Nabanggit ko na sa opening statement ko- Kung ako ang isa sa mga Justices, ang fair verdict ko ay still partly unconstitutional but not criminal.

    Bakit?, Ang na-violate ni PNoy ay yung procedural part at wala pang ebidensya na ninakaw nya ang pondo o kasabwat sya sa pagnakaw (Criminal Part) ng pondo. At idadagdag ko pa ang pasasalamat kay Manager1 (PNoy) na napuna nya rin ang kamalian ng SC sa nakaraang pag-violate ng standard procedure sa pondo. Dahil may mga conflicting procedures as ibang sections at may history na kahit na SC ay hindi rin na follow yung procedure then eto ay magandang halimbawa ng lessons learned, pero no foul! Ang decision ko ay bigyan ng warning lang at next time ay grounds for suspension na yung Executive. Magsusulat kami ng Report at babaguhin ang Standard Procedures na may mga conflicting provisions at gawing napaka-klarado para yung mga empleyado ay magabayan sa tamang pamamalakad ng kumpanya sa pag-gamit ng pondo.

    At babanggitin ko pa na iba ang nature ng kaso nila Enrile, Jinggoy, Bong, Gigi, et al, dahil may ebidensya na ninakaw at pinaghatian ang pondo ng gobyerno, eto ay Criminal at hindi Procedural. Therefore the gravity of Procedural violation is less than that of Criminal Violation, the former will be dealt with a warning/notification (Pag strike 2, pwede ng tanggalin) while the latter will be dealt with immediate termination!
    –
    –
    –
    –
    Parekoy
    07/23/2014
    Posting after checking my weight on bathroom scale
    –
    –
    –
    Reference:

    ISO 9001 Quality Procedures
    http://www(dot)qualitysystems(dot)com/support/pages/non-conformance

    Definitions:

    Non-Comformance

    A non-conformance means that something went wrong – a problem has occurred and needs to be addressed. Non-conformances are addressed with corrective actions.

    A non-conformance could be identified through customer complaints, internal audits, external audits, incoming material inspection or simply during normal testing and inspection activities.
    Corrective Actions

    Corrective actions are reactive – something has gone wrong and these are the actions taken to deal with the problem. Non-conformances are resolved through corrective actions.

    This will include the immediate corrective actions you take to keep your customer happy, e.g. you sent the wrong part and will immediately replace it with the correct part.

    • Maganda rin ang RCA gaya nang kay @yvonne.

      Yung 3 memos ni Abad para kay PNoy ay maaari ng 1 root cause.

      • Oops, may mas malalim pa palang dahilan doon sa memo.

        Hindi aral ng sottocopy si Abad…

        • Unconstitutional pa rin.

          At tapos kasuhan ng ‘technical malversation‘ ang puedeng kasuhan. Si PNoy after 2016 na lang kung mayroon pa ring galit sa kaniya.

          —–

          Sayang…kung hindi pala nag-X-border si Carpio ay wala ng ‘scorched earth’. Maganda sana yun para sa accountability part.

          Kasi gugustuhin kong i-impeach siya ni PNoy…bagama’t mga legal lightweights ang kaniyang mga galamay…

          Who needs a BAM hit when he gets clobbered by his own men…

        • @Parekoy,

          Sa twitterverse…

          Ginamitan daw ng DAP ang bagong kulungan ng mga PDAFers.

          Yan ang foresight…

          Para din pala yang bagong kulungan sa mga DAPpers!

        • @baycas

          Partly sa pagpagawa ng mga bagong kulungan, may good faith agad! :-)

          Yung, Technical Malversation, pwedeng depensahan yon na yung GAA ay in conflict sa ibang sections, pero stretching it a bit more. Pero pwedeng mag savemface yung Palasyo at SC na hindi pa klarado yung paggamit ng pondo kaya after the ruling lang ng unconstitutionality ng DAP, doon lang magkakaron ng effect sa future violators sa kasong technical malversation. So yung chronology importante rin, kaht mukhang stretched…

        • Conflicts in law?

          Gawa-gawa yan ng mga hindi aral sa Law at kung nag-aral man ay masiyadong malikot at mapang-imbento ang isip kaya naglilikha ng kalituhan. Sa maling interpretasyon para lang sa pansariling kapakanan nagmumula ang kalituhan. Lalo pa sa mga taong nagmamadali at nagsho-shortcut ng proseso.

          Conflicts in law?

          You just go back to the letter and spirit of the Cory Constitution for clarifications.

          And the Constitutional interpreter and the last* bastion of democracy is…

          Ta daah…

          The Supreme Court…the institution…not the individual personalities. And definitely NOT the Executive and/or the Legislative Departments, whose members wallowed (or still wallowing?) in pork grease.

          “The Supreme Court IS ALWAYS right even if it is wrong,” as what Serge Osmeña has reminded listeners.

          —–
          *Ako, I also characterize the SC as the last ‘orbiter‘…orbit, as in run circles in our minds with some ‘flip-flops’.

          But you cannot (and must not) bring the SC, as an institution, down like what PNoy is doing now.

        • Conflicts in law! Kaya nga stretched para save faced pareho ang Executive at Judiciary, else mutual destruction ang mangyayari, panalo yung mga corrupt, stopped work ang trabaho sa daang matuwid.

          Yung essence ay, “yes I find you gulity administratively, pero reprimand lang ang parusa.”

          So, win-win!

          Sangkatutak na SALN at bukasan ng bank accounts yan. The SC is already thinking of a Solomonic decision by looking atbthe big picture. Hindi sila ang kaaway ni PNoy, pero yung proving good faith nawindang ang executive. Pano mo ipapakita ang good faith, subjective yun. i mentioned and we both agree that by our standards na talagang alam nating na mga klepto itong mga pulitiko, “bad faith ang default”.

          Pero to break the impasse, rule on DAP unconstitutional, the reprimand lang, then move on to war against corruption, although selective persecution. At least yun mga corrupt ng oposisyon ay mabawasan, then sacrifice din ng konti sa mga admin na corrupt.

          Maging partner with the judiciary sa crusade against corruption, then mas magaan ng konti kay PNoy at walang mga surprises sa mga kaso nila Enrile, Jinggoy, Bong, Gigi, et al, pag inelevate sa SC ng nga wais na lawyers.

          :-)

        • Agree, in a way…

          Though I rather like a “scorched earth” scenario because it’s somewhat a revolution WITHIN the system…and indoors too, not in EDSA. All 3 branches will be purged without the literal cutting off of heads akin to what Robespierre did.

          —–

          Regarding Senate investigation on DAP…

          In fairness, i like Sec. Abad’s opening statement…

          No combative stance.

          Nonetheless, the devil is in the details. Let the accounting (audit) begin but the finality of the SC decision on DAP is to be awaited because then and only then can we segregate constitutional and unconstitutional disbursement of monies.

        • Mas prefered ko yung French, kasi sabi ng girlfriend ko noong college, haba daw dila ko! :-)

          Seriously, mas effective pag may naparusahan sa kamay ng tao, ala Gaddafi, para huwag na talagang tularan confiscate din lahat ng mga ari-arian ng mga anak, asawa, at mga kabits! Yun ang tunay na Justice, barbaric but fair.

    • [email protected]…naka limutan mo –

      …paano yun halimbawa binigay mo na ‘korporasyun’ …’corporation’ body
      …yun mga ‘INVESTORS’ or ‘shareholders’ ng Korporasyun…
      …mayroon sila ginamit or sinundan na Investors/shareholders’ Code…IC 294 (Investors’ Code No. 294

      …that says “Puede gamitin ang aming pundo sa mga gastos saan man sa loob ng departamento or labas man sa korporasyon kaya nag ‘invest’ kami !

      Yun IC 294 ay ‘substantive’… anong ‘procedural or criminal’ ang nilabag ng management sa policy ng Korporasyun? e…wala !

      • @leona

        Example lang yun. Ang point is walang ibinulsa, pero sa GAA yung interpretasyon ng SC nilabag. Kung nilabag ano ang parusa?

        Masasabit si Abad sa technical malversation, kaya nag MR para i-final ng SC kung ano ba talaga?

        Ang problema, war freak ngayon si PNoy, kaya pressured yung SC, kasi yung executive madali ring magkalkal ng dumi ng mga justices, kaya tuliro rin ang SC Justices, mas makapangyarihan talaga ang executive. Yung pantay-pantay yung Executive, Legislative, at Judiciary, sa papel lang yan, sa tunay na buhay mas malakas talaga ang executive kesa sa dalwa. So as a compromise, unconstitutional pero slap on the wrist lang ang parusa, then palamig muna ang Executive at Judiciary.

        Then tuloy ang pagsampa ng next batch ng plunder cases.

        :-)

        • Kuwidaw din ako diyan sa pagbulsabulsa ng pera dahil hindi naman lahat ibinubulsa. May ibinabalik din sa mamamayan. Kaya hindi umaamin kasi nakatutulong pa rin ang mga politiko sa kanilang constituents.

          Mga Robin Hoodlums ang resulta ng patronage politics sa atin kaya rin nagkaroon ng political dynasty at pagnenegosyo sa larangan ng pulitika.

          Di ko lang alam kung gaano kalaki ang naibubulsa against sa ibinabalik sa paraang pagpapapogi sa bayan.

          Ang mahalaga maiparating sa bayan na masama ang pagiging Robin Hoodlum, magbulsa man o hindi. Kung Consequentialism ang laging ipaiiral, hindi mare-reboot ang system sa tama.

        • Yung mga may program daw, maliit lang cut, mga 20-25% lang, di tulad nong DAP sa mga Senador, 50% kasi kay Maam Jenny, yung sa admin, iba ang suki. Before DAP, yung PDAF, Mas magulang si Tandang Angara, may sariling NGO.

        • @Parekoy,

          At sabi ni Lacierda (siya yata yun) na katiting lang naman daw ang nabigay sa Kongreso sa paraang DAP. Kung ganyan kalaki ang porsiyento ay bale ubos-ubos ang “katiting” ni Lacierda.

        • Siguro noong sinusuri nya ng hiniram nyang reading lens na avatar ni @raissa, eh baligtad, kaya lumiit.

  12. An update from Dean Tony La Viña…

    I wonder who misled the President about this so-called cross-border transfer by the Judiciary. A review of the facts would show that the savings that was supposedly moved to the Department of Justice was not moved at all but simply earmarked but with the Judicial Department actually doing the construction of the Manila courts. While the Supreme Court should not respond to the President, perhaps it is time for the Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to inquire on why such blatantly wrong legal advice is being given to the highest official of the land.

    https://www.facebook.com/deantonylavs?filter=1

    • That is not Manila court. It is Manila Hall of Justice which would house the court, city prosecutor , public attorney’s office, etc. The court is only a portion of the structure.