2nd Plunder case against Drilon REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) CITY OF ILOILO ) s.s. x------------------------------------------x A F F I D A V I T I, AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO JR., Ph.D., of legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of No. 4 Rodriguez St., Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and say, that: PREFATORY STATEMENT I am a Filipino Citizen, a law abiding citizen and a person who seeks to enjoy and enforce my constitutional right to maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and to take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption as enshrined under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution stating that “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”. As sanctified in the aforementioned constitutional provision a public office is a public trust that enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; All public servants are expected to exhibit the highest degree of integrity in deference to their foremost duty of accountability to the people. For this, a public servant must perform his assigned duties and obligations with dedication, efficiency, utmost responsibility and with complete honesty. These exacting requirements apply to all public officers, from the highest position to the lowest and in all branches of government; With the numerous anomalies and irregularities happening in the City of Iloilo over several projects introduced, sponsored and implemented by Senate President Franklin Magtunao Drilon, I now present to the Office of the Ombudsman another set of unlawful and indictable acts committed by Franklin Magtunao Drilon in relation to the purchase of an overpriced parcel of land through his Priority Development Assistance Fund which is now utilized as a relocation site located at Brgy. San Isidro, Jaro, Iloilo City; I am a steadfast advocate of transparency in public service and accountability of public officers. At 28 years old then & Vice President thereof and as one of the Delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, I was the principal sponsor and author of the provision establishing the accountability of public officers embodied in Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution. These provisions created the Ombudsman as a Constitutional body which shall receive and investigate complaints relative to public office, make appropriate recommendations, and in case of failure of justice as defined by law, file and prosecute the corresponding criminal, civil or administrative case before the proper court or body. These provisions also created the Sandiganbayan which have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. This proviso in the 1973 Constitution were adopted and incorporated both in the Freedom Constitution and in the 1987 Constitution, seeing it fit to maintain the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan as the principal instruments for public accountability. I am presently the highest ranking of its living Senior Officers of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. With the face-to-face insatiable greed of the respondent and his cohorts, I impose upon myself a paramount duty of bringing to the light the perpetrators and their unlawful acts. Respondent is the current Senate President upon whom our law mandates and requires to maintain and bear the wholesome responsibility to keep public faith. Any act that falls short should not be countenanced and should be subjected to proper sanctions and penalties. He cannot abscond and exempt himself from faithfully observing these rules of public accountability because of his close alliance to the present administration; Thus, I am filing this present complaint against Senate President Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts, herein nominated as John Does and Jane Does (herein referred to as the respondents); STATEMENT OF FACTS A simple and incidental transaction of relocating families displaced by the Iloilo Flood Control Project has become another ala Janet Lim-Napoles stratagem for respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon purposely to plunder the public treasury and our impoverished long – suffering Ilonggos. By holding the baton of authority and influence as Senator and wielding it over several John Does and Jane Does in the City of Iloilo, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon was, again, in this instance, able to organize a systematic means of plundering his Presidential Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) likewise known as “pork barrel”. Sadly for us and the Filipino people, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon successfully implemented his stratagem of greed and plunder. While respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts enjoyed the over-price of their plunderous crimes amounting to not less than Sixty Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php60,500,000.00), we take this excruciating task of narrating the harrowing facts and events on how respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon was able to plunder the said amount from public funds. The Iloilo Flood Control Project (IFCP) is a project of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Iloilo City, Philippines. The project aims to reduce flood damage, which has been an almost yearly occurrence. For its full implementation, all persons who used to live on the banks of the Iloilo River and its connecting creeks needed to be cleared and transferred away from the said river banks. These persons had to be vacated and relocated away from their perilous residences along the river banks to ensure the unimpeded construction of the IFCP and the eventual unimpeded flow of flood waters after its construction. With this, the Iloilo City government arranged for the relocation of all affected individuals and in this pleading these individuals are collectively referred to as “affected individuals”. For the relocation of these impoverished and homeless people, funds were necessary to acquire real properties for their relocation sites. Seeing this situation as an opportunity and to allow the full swing of construction of the well-prized IFCP, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon wasted no moment to undertake and assume the financial sponsorship of this relocation program. It is of public knowledge that the relocation of these affected individuals was financed through the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) likewise known as “pork barrel” of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon. With the financial backing already assured, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon then caused the City of Iloilo to look for and to find seller(s) for a suitable property, not only as a relocation site but likewise suited, amenable and in conspiracy to his corruptive plans. Under this premise, it was not long before respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his co-conspirators, hereunder referred to as John Does and Jane Does, were able to find the property suited for their needs and as co-conspirators of his corruptive plans. The property chosen for and by respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon which they deemed best suited for their nefarious intentions was a real property identified as Lot No. 4292-B located at Brgy. San Isidro, Jaro, Iloilo City owned by a certain Marilyn Mirasol Inocencio. This property has an area of Sixteen Hectares and Two Thousand Square Meters (16.2has.), more or less. (This property is herein referred to as the subject property for brevity.) For the years 1999-2002, the City Assessors Office of Iloilo City had classified Lot No. 4292-B as “agricultural” (riceland) with a market value of Three Million Three Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Pesos (Php3,366,560.00) and assessed value of Two Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Pesos (Php269,320.00). Thence, for 2003-2005, the property continued to be declared and classified as “agricultural” (riceland), but with a lower market value of Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Thirty Pesos (Php2,754,030.00). Its assessed value went up slightly to Three Hundred Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Pesos (Php330,480.00). Inocencio, as declared property owner at that time, paid a total of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four Pesos and Ninety Centavos (Php7,434.90) as real property taxes for the year 2005. Before its purchase the subject property could be classified only as unproductive rice field, since it had no roads available or connecting to any main road, and there was no access to electricity and potable water. Moreover, the subject property is prone to bad flooding. In general, the subject property that became subject of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon’s greedy interest was underdeveloped prior to its purchase. It is even worse off today as a house of crime and object poverty. Having located the right property suited for their corruptive plans, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon caused the immediate negotiation of the subject property with his PDAF (pork barrel) ready for release. On August 12, 2004 the negotiation for the purchase of the subject property was commenced. Less than two weeks later, the Committee on Land Evaluation and Acquisition (CLEA) Technical Working Group (TWG) rendered a report pushing for the property as “the most ideal and suitable site for the Iloilo Flood Control Project Relocation Site-Stage 2.” On September 3, 2004, the CLEA approved the findings of the TWG and recommended the property as the “most suitable and ideal site” to be utilized for relocation. On December 7, 2005, the City Appraisal Committee (CAC) came up with a resolution to offer a purchase price of Three Hundred Ninety Three Pesos (P393.00/sq.m.) per square meter. All throughout the previous times and before its reclassification last January 24, 2006 , the fair market value of the subject property as appraised by the City Assessor’s Office and appearing in its Tax Declaration is Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Thirty Pesos (Php2,754,030.00), or just Seventeen Pesos (Php17.00) per square meter. The transaction was stalled for a moment when a complaint was filed by a concerned citizen alleging that the same was fraught with irregularities. A glaring irregularity thereof is the huge discrepancy between the market value and intended purchase offer of the subject property. The market value is only Php17.00 while the purchase offer was set in the whooping amount of Php393.00 or Twenty Three (23) times the market value of the property. Despite the foregoing, however, the said complaint was merely brushed aside. To boost the valuation of the property, on Jan. 24, 2006, the City Assessor’s Office issued a new tax declaration that changed the classification of the subject property from “agricultural” to “residential” immediately before the purchase of the same property. The proper and prudent sequence should have been to purchase the property under the present classification as agricultural land, and to apply under its current valuation and thereafter, after purchasing this, to apply for re-classification to residential use. Certainly, its previous owner had no particular need to have it reclassified as residential property, nor the facility to convert it or to utilize it for residential use. These manipulations of the market value for the subject property abruptly increased artificially its selling price to Eighty One Million One Thousand Pesos (Php81,001,000.00) while the assessed value also sky-rocketed to Six Million Seventy Five Thousand Eighty Pesos (Php6,075,080.00). In a worse and surprising turn of events, the subject property which was valued at Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Thirty (Php2,754,030.00) only a day ago, was re-negotiated for to a stupendously increased amount of Sixty Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php63,200,000.00) on January 25, 2006 through a Deed of Sale signed and executed a day after its market and assessed value were arbitrarily increased. Apparently, the issuance of the new tax declaration was made to justify the overprice, to the damage and prejudice of the government. With matters all set and prepared, in conspiracy with respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon for him, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon immediately released the amount to pay the land owner in a staggering amount of Sixty Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php63,200,000.00) from his PDAF. Obviously respondent was more than willing to immediately pay off the subject property at its horrendously elevated amount, despite the apparently bloated price. This anomaly was corroborated by a person who has complete personal knowledge of all the transactions that have transpired in relation to the purchase of this over-priced piece of property. This person is Efren Gimeo who acted as broker for the sale of the subject property. On May 7, 2010, Gimeo said he had personally handed over P4.25 million as kickback to several John Does and Jane Does. These John Does and Jane Does conspired and acted as the Janet Lim-Napoles for the pork barrel of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon. With his pawns getting their own share of kickbacks out of this transaction, it is then apparent that respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon received the lion’s share in the amount as herein stated. UNLAWFUL ACT With the above stated sets of facts, we now take time to place into the limelight the acts and participations committed and orchestrated by respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon; Respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon connived and conspired with several John Does and Jane Does for the purchase and acquisition of an over priced real property known as Lot No. 4292-B located at Brgy. San Isidro, Jaro, Iloilo City with an actual market value of Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Thirty (Php2,754,030.00) for an overpriced amount of Sixty Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP:63,200,000.00) thereby amassing and acquiring the amount of not less than Sixty Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP:60,500,000.00) representing the additional increment and unconscionable difference between the overpriced amount and actual market value of the subject property purchased, for the personal benefit/gain of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and co-conspirators, to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public in general; Supporting Fact/s: Imposing his authority and influence on everyone concerned who acted as his cohorts and co-conspirators, from the landowner to other government officials implementing the relocation project, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon cleverly caused the payment of a grossly manipulated and overpriced relocation site, to the ruin and prejudice of public interest. For a long period of time prior to January 24, 2006, the subject property has had a market value of only Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Thirty (Php2,754,030.00). This property was surprisingly purchased in a sudden and stupendously increased amount of Sixty Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php63,200,000.00). That was literally increased over-night at the stroke of an expensive montblanc pen. To give basis thereto respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts, within a matter of few hours within just one 24-hour day, manipulated the tax declaration of the subject property by reclassifying the property from agricultural to residential and issuing a new tax declaration with sky rocketing market and assessed values, only one day before the execution of the Deed of Sale. Evidently, these scheme was undertaken by respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts in order to gain and acquire the amount of Sixty Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP:60,500,000.00) representing the difference between overpriced amount and actual market value of the subject property purchased for their personal benefit/gain and to the damage and prejudice of the government and the public in general. COVER UP Following the patent irregularity in the sudden increase of market value and abrupt reclassification of the subject property, I verified the pertinent tax declarations of the subject property, that is, its tax declarations from the year 1999 to 2006. While earnest in my efforts to obtain a copy of these tax declarations, I was surprised about how difficult these documents could now be obtained, despite its swift transformation. As my eagerness to obtain these tax declarations gave me ample energy to push with my desire, I was, however, effectively deprived by the evasive and defensive schemes of the concerned government agencies. The adamant determination of these concerned offices to cover and protect the documents which lays bare the anomaly surrounding the complained of transaction truly shows that a “Big Man” is being protected and insulated. Too bad for him, I am submitting this complaint to show that no man is bigger than the rule of law and the accompanying truthful facts. With the foregoing, I respectfully implore the authority of the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman to obtain these documents as part of its investigatory power conferred by our Supreme Law, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Now, no “Big Man” can surely go against it. The truth will out. It will set us free, and it will send the “Big Man” to jail. LAWS TRANSGRESSED VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER Republic Act No. 7080 otherwise known as “An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder” as amended defines plunder as the amassing, accumulation or acquisition by any public officer by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons of ill-gotten wealth through a combination of overt or criminal acts in the aggregate or total amount of at least Seventy-Five Million Philippine Pesos; In the case of the People of the Philippines versus former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al., for plunder promulgated on September 12, 2007, the Honorable Supreme Court cited the reason behind the Anti-Plunder Law, stating that: Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and economic treason, punishes the use of high office for personal enrichment, committed thru a series of acts done not in the public eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period of time, that may involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or omissions sought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting in material damage to the national economy. The above-described crime does not yet exist in Philippine statute books. Thus, the need to come up with a legislation as a safeguard against the possible recurrence of the depravities of the previous regime and as a deterrent to those with similar inclination to succumb to the corrupting influence of power. No way can Drilon and cohorts justify the windfall profits from this their manipulated events. Section 2 of R.A. 7080, as amended, provides for the forfeiture of the wealth proven to be ill-gotten, as well its interests, thus: SECTION 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. — Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. (Emphasis supplied) This instant case, involving a high ranking official, Senator Franklin Magtunao Drilon, is in fact not the first. However, despite several precedent cases, this case is still one of a kind that clearly illustrates grand-scale corruption in our country and in every land and culture. Clearly, there is a combination of criminal or overt acts in this instant case which resulted in several officials amassing and accumulating ill-gotten wealth and mind-boggling kickbacks to the detriment of our poor people taken advantaged of, without any angst of conscience. Manipulating documents, procedures and assessments in order to change overnight the assessment of an agricultural land from Php 2.7 million to Php 81 million is tremendously shocking to the moral conscience of all people concerned, here or abroad, in all places, any climate or time then, now or ever. In the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan , the Honorable Supreme Court was able to clearly discuss the elements of the crime of plunder. As pronounced in the said jurisprudential rule, the crime of plunder has the following elements, to wit: 1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons; 2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and, 3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00. As it is written, the Anti-Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 of the Anti-Plunder Law is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and particularity. Thus in light of the applicable laws and jurisprudence herein cited, let me stress the material facts and circumstances which would warrant the indictment of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon for the crime of Plunder. First, respondent is an elected Senator of the Republic of the Philippines when the subject property was purchased. The budget allocation for the purchase thereof was taken from the PDAF (Pork Barrel) of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon. Being the one who provided the financial means to acquire the subject property sourced from his PDAF (Pork Barrel) it is certainly ascertained that respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon is a public officer who acted and participated in the purchase of the overpriced subject property. Secondly, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon amassed, acquired and accumulated ill-gotten wealth by reason of the purchase of a property to be overpriced overnight by Sixty Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php60,500,000.00). To put forward first, the subject property is undoubtedly overpriced by Php60,500,000.00 as herein narrated. Despite the flagrant artificial and mind-boggling overprice of the subject property, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon still continued with his purchase by providing and allocating the said full artificially over-priced amount from his PDAF (Pork Barrel) and remitting the same to the land owner. It cannot be claimed that he was unaware of the foregoing. Respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon certainly had the complete knowledge and control of the purchase of the subject property being the financial sponsor thereof at such an over-bloated amount of Php63,200,000.00. The intentional purchase of an overpriced real property certainly resulted to gain on the part of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon since the purchase price thereof was flagrantly, unashamedly and consciously bloated in the amount of a whopping Php60,500,000.00 in order that the same may be taken by respondent and his cohort/conspirator, so that Principal Respondent Drilon was able to receive kickback, commission and/or share of some Php60,500,000.00. Third and last, the amount of government money amassed, accumulated and unlawfully acquired by respondent by reason of the unlawful and highly irregular purchase of an artificially overpriced real property certainly exceeded the amount of Php50,000,000.00. The market value of the subject property is only Two Million Seven Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Thirty (Php2,754,030.00). While respondent, in connivance with his cohorts unlawfully purchased the same for an over-priced amount of Sixty Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP:63,200,000.00). And out of this transaction respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts amassed and acquired an amount of not less than Sixty Million Five Hundred Thousandth Peso (PHP:60,500,000.00) representing the difference between artificially over-priced amount and actual market value of the subject property purchased wantonly purchased without regard to the slightest semblance of conscience, decency and equity; VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT Section of R.A. 3019, provides that: Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense. (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. (c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act. (d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination. (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 administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. (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 obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party. (g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby. (h) Directly or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest. (i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong. (j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled. (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date. (Emphasis ours) It is undisputed that the unlawful acts of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon falls squarely within several corrupt practices of as defined and illustrated above. When this unscrupulous and overpriced purchase of the subject property, Respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon, in using his Priority Development Assistance Fund (Pork Barrel) as budget source, conspired and connived with several John Does and Jane Does when they violated the provision of R.A. 3019 In particular, they all directly received share, percentages and benefits in connection with the subject transaction under the moral distortion and wanton orchestration of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts are liable under section 3, paragraph (b) of the same law. By these anomalous transactions, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon with his cohorts directly or indirectly had financing or pecuniary interest in the subject transaction. There was manifest intervention by respondent Drilon in his official capacity as Senator and financial sponsor. The contracts and transactions consummated by Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts in combining, confederating and conspiring to purchase an overpriced property further led to the violation of Section 3, paragraph (h) of the same law. This transaction entered by the respondent for and in behalf of the government, respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon acting as the over-all coordinator thereof, are clearly and grossly disadvantageous to the government wherein they derived undue gain, profit and benefit to the detriment of the Government, respondents are likewise guilty under Section 3, paragraph (g) of the same law. VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as “An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees” provides the guidelines to be observed by every public official and employee in the discharge and execution of official duties. Section 4 of the said Republic Act states that: Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties: (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. (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. (c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs. (d) Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or preference. (e) Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas. (f) Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion. (g) Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and employees shall commit themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain the principle of public accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian authority over the military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party. (h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form. (Emphasis ours) Furthermore, the said law enumerated prohibited acts and transactions of a public official or employee, and we quote: Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: (a) Financial and material interest. - Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office. (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: (1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law; (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or (3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office. (c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public, either: (1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or (2) To prejudice the public interest. (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. (Emphasis ours) The Philosophy behind all these laws is that the public officer is duty bound to see to it that the interest of the government and our people are duly protected. Thus, should the contract or transaction entered by such public officer be manifestly or grossly disadvantageous to the government’s interests, the public officer is held liable under all these laws. Clearly, the unlawful acts of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon, as above narrated, fell him short of the exacting standards required of a public officer. For this, he should be indicted and penalized accordingly with the full force of our laws, human justice and Godly recompense. DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 01-02 2002 Comprehensive Rules On Land Use Conversion February 28, 2002 Respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohort/co-conspirators, through their flagrant and wanton greed, violated DAR Administrative Order No. 01-02 or the 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion. Section 12 of the said rules provide, inter alia, as follows: SECTION 12. Where to file application and Approving Authority. — 12.1. Duly accomplished and notarized application forms and the complete documentary requirements set forth in Section 10 hereof shall be filed with the following offices: 12.1.1. Regional Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (RCLUPPI), located at the DAR Regional Office, for applications involving lands with an area less than or equal to five (5) hectares, or a fraction above five (5) hectares. The Regional Director shall be the approving authority for such applications; and 12.1.2. Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI), located at the DAR Central Office, for applications involving lands with an area larger than five (5) hectares. The Secretary shall be the approving authority for such applications and may delegate the same authority to any Undersecretary. (Emphasis supplied) The subject property was unlawfully and abruptly reclassified overnight upon the categorical instructions of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon. He did this in order that he can expedite and justify the payment of a bloated and artificially increased purchase price, despite knowing full well that he and his cohorts/co-conspirators flagrantly & wantonly violated the aforementioned laws and time-honored rules of decency and conduct. Thus, the act of respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon in unlawfully reclassifying the subject property violated Section 12.1.2. of DAR Administrative Order No. 01-02 and for this he should likewise be held responsible and punished. PRAYER FOR IMMEDIATE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION AND FILING OF NECESSARY INFORMATION With the present government position of power and influence that respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon occupies, it is necessary that a preventive suspension be issued immediately against him pending investigation of this complaint in order to protect public interest. And, at the soonest possible time, to file the Necessary Information, considering Drilon’s propensity to use the powers and influence of his office as President of the Senate. This prayer is founded on the rule that the Office of the Ombudsman must be given the opportunity to gather and prepare the facts unhindered as it is and under conditions which would ensure non-intervention and non-interference from respondents’ position of power that is readily prone to abuse. Similar to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 emphasizes the principle that a public office is a public trust. Part and parcel of this principle is a presumption that unless the public officer is suspended, he may frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or both. Relatedly, the Ombudsman has full discretion to select which evidence it will gather and present, free from any interference. Thus, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Office that pending hearing of this case a preventive suspension be issued against the respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon. CONCLUSION Ergo, with the foregoing discussion and narration of facts, it is safe to conclude that respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon and his cohorts are liable for the crime of Plunder, violation of R.A. 3019 and R.A. 6713, they should be indicted for and punished accordingly, and that respondent Franklin Magtunao Drilon should be placed on preventive suspension forthwith. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truthfulness of the foregoing facts and circumstances and to support the criminal and administrative complaints for Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Republic Act No. 6713 against the respondents HON. FRANKLIN MAGTUNAO DRILON, JOHN DOES, JANE DOES AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY, RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR OTHER PERSONS, who participated in the purchase of an overpriced real property as herein discussed; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this ¬¬-___ day of ___________________ 2013 in _____________________, Philippines. AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO JR., Ph.D. Complainant-Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to for me this ___ day of __________________ 2013 in ____________________. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am fully satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his affidavit/complaint. Doc. No. _____; Page No. _____; Book No. _____; Series of 2013
Posted on: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 05:36:43 +0000