Get documents about "gma-plunder-complaint-affidavit-04-25-2011
Document Sample
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PADRE FAURA, MANILA
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ,
Complainant,
—versus— CASE NO. _______________
For: Plunder, Malversation
and/or Illegal Use of
OWWA Fund, Graft
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, and Corruption,
VIRGILIO R. ANGELO, FRANCISCO Violation(s) of the
DUQUE III, and ALBERTO G. Omnibus Election
ROMULO, Code, Violation of the
Code of Conduct and
Respondents. Ethical Standards for
Public Officials,
x – —– —– —– —– —– —– — x Qualified Theft.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, a Filipino citizen, of legal age, under
oath, hereby depose and state:
―All persons possessing any portion of
power ought to be strongly and awfully
impressed with an idea that they act in trust,
and that they are to account for their conduct
in that trust to the one great Master, Author,
and Founder of society.‖1
COMPLAINANT
1. I, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, am an attorney-at-law and I am
initiating this Complaint in my capacity as a taxpaying citizen of the
Republic of the Philippines.
2. My legal standing as taxpayer to initiate actions and/or
commence proceedings involving matters of public interest has been
1 EDMUND BURKE, REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE (1790].
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
recognized and upheld by no less than the Supreme Court of the
Philippines in the cases of Chavez versus PCGG (299 SCRA 744),
Chavez versus PEA-Amari (384 SCRA 152); Chavez versus Drilon, et al.
(415 SCRA 44), Chavez versus Alberto Romulo (431 SCRA 534), Chavez
versus Comelec (437 SCRA 415), Chavez versus Ermita, et al. (488
SCRA 1), Chavez versus Gonzales and National Telecommunications
Commission (545 SCRA 441).
3. I am represented herein by the CHAVEZ MIRANDA
ASEOCHE LAW OFFICES, with office address at 8/F, One Corporate
Plaza, 845 Arnaiz Avenue, San Lorenzo Village 1223, Makati City,
Metropolitan Manila, where I may hereafter be served with copies of all
pleadings, motions, manifestations, and other papers or documents by
respondents herein, as well as all notices and processes issued, and all
judgments, decisions, orders, resolutions, and other forms of
adjudication promulgated or rendered, by this Honorable Office.
RESPONDENTS
4. RESPONDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (hereinafter
“respondent GMA”) claimed to be the fourteenth (14th) President of the
Republic of the Philippines and is currently a Member of the House of
Representatives, being the Representative of the Second (2 nd) District of
Pampanga. She holds office at Room MB-2, House of Representatives,
Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila, where she may be served with all
notices and processes issued, and all judgments, decisions, orders,
resolutions, and other forms of adjudication promulgated or rendered,
by this Honorable Office.
5. RESPONDENT ALBERTO G. ROMULO (hereinafter
“respondent Romulo”) was, at all times material to this Complaint, the
Executive Secretary of GMA. He may be served with all notices and
processes issued, and all judgments, decisions, orders, resolutions, and
other forms of adjudication promulgated or rendered, by this
Honorable Office at 2290 Magnolia Street, Dasmariñas Village, Makati
City, Metropolitan Manila. Respondent Romulo, as then-Executive
Secretary, provoked and facilitated the diversion of OWWA funds.
6. RESPONDENT FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III (hereinafter
“respondent Duque”) was the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION (hereinafter
“PHIC”). He is currently Chair of the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
located at Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex Diliman
Complaint-Affidavit Page 2 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
1126, Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila, where he may hereafter be
served with all notices and processes issued, and all judgments,
decisions, orders, resolutions, and other forms of adjudication
promulgated or rendered, by this Honorable Office. As then President
and Chief Executive Officer of PHIC, respondent Duque proposed,
instigated and cooperated in the channeling of no less than five hundred
thirty, three hundred eighty-two, four hundred forty-six Philippine
Pesos (PhP 530,382,446.00) from OWWA Medicare to the PHIC for
political use in the re-election bid of respondent Arroyo in 2004.
7. RESPONDENT VIRGILIO R. ANGELO (hereinafter “respondent
Angelo”) was, at all times material to the present case, the
Administrator of the OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION
(hereinafter “OWWA”). He may be served with all notices and
processes issued, and all judgments, decisions, orders, resolutions, and
other forms of adjudication promulgated or rendered, by this
Honorable Office at his law known address at OWWA Building, 7th
Street, F.B. Harrison, Pasay City. It was during his stint as OWWA
Administrator that he facilitated, and cooperated in, the diversion of
hundreds of millions of pesos from the OWWA Fund.
STATUTORY BASES
8. The first day of the month of May—”Labor Day”—is, both
by law and tradition, an international celebration of the laborer. In the
Philippines, and not surprisingly, the cardinal legislation that protects
and enforces the rights of the laborer was enacted on Labor Day of
1974. On Labor Day of 1977, the dictator FERDINAND E. MARCOS
(Marcos, for brevity), through Letter of Instructions No. 537, re-
emphasized “the national policy to protect the interest and promote the
welfare of Filipino overseas workers on recognition of their valuable
contribution to the overall development effort.” Pursuant thereto, and
for the declared purpose of promoting the well-being of the Filipino
overseas workers, the Secretary of Labor was “instructed to create a
Welfare and Training Fund for Overseas Workers in the Department of
Labor, the main objectives and purposes of which are:
“1. To provide social and welfare services to
Filipino overseas workers, including insurance coverage,
social work assistance, legal assistance, placement
assistance, cultural services, remittances services, and the
like;
Complaint-Affidavit Page 3 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
“2. To provide skills and career development
services to the Filipino overseas workers and their
replacements in order to insure adequate supply of
manpower for national economy as well as expect;
“3. To undertake studies and researches for
enhancement of their social, economic, and cultural well-
being; and
“4. To develop, support, and finance specific
projects for the benefit of Filipino overseas workers.”
5. Said Welfare and Training Fund for Overseas Workers
was initially financed by earnings, fees, and collections from the
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (hereinafter “OEDB”),
the BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES (hereinafter “BES”) and the
NATIONAL SEAMEN’S BOARD (hereinafter “NSB”).
6. To administer the Fund, Letter of Instructions No. 537
directed the creation of a Board of Trustees composed of the Secretary
of Labor as Chairman, the Undersecretary of Labor as Vice-Chairman,
the Executive Directors of the OEDB, the BES, and the NSB, the Director
General of the NYMC and two (2) representatives of the construction
industry as members.
7. The MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (hereinafter
“MOLE”) issued rules and regulations implementing Letter of
Instructions No. 537, which included a schedule of contributions to the
fund, to wit.
Foreign employer USD 50 per worker
Foreign employer hiring USD 25 per worker
Filipino seamen,
domestics, and
entertainers
Filipino employer PhP 100 per worker
Workers hired for the USD 25 per worker
United Kingdom and
United States markets
Foreign government hiring USD 25 per worker
for the public service
Members of the diplomatic USD 25 per worker
corps, United Nations,
Agencies and
Instrumentalities and
Complaint-Affidavit Page 4 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
other internationally-
accredited civic and
religious organizations
8. On Labor Day of 1980, Marcos issued Presidential Decree
No. 1694 reorganizing the Welfare and Training Fund for Overseas
Workers. All contributions to the Welfare and Training Fund for
Overseas Workers were transferred to the Welfare Fund.
9. On 16 January 1981, Marcos issued Presidential Decree
No. 1809 amending Sections 2, 3, and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1694,
which introduced the following significant changes:
a. The contributions to the Welfare Fund were
required to be deposited in a government bank;
b. The inclusion of the Minster of Foreign
Affairs, Minister of Budget in the Board of Trustees;
c. The designation of the Administrator of the
Welfare Fund as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees in
place of the Deputy MOLE; and
d. The removal of the ceiling on operational
expenses equivalent to a maximum of five percent (5%) of
the investment income of the Welfare Fund.
10. When the OEDB, NSB, and the overseas employment
functions of the BES were merged to form the PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS
EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (hereinafter “POEA”) in 1982, the
POEA Administrator assumed his seat in the Board of Trustees of the
Welfare Fund.
11. On 31 January 1987, THEN-PRESIDENT CORAZON C.
AQUINO issued Executive Order No. 126, renaming the Welfare Fund
for Overseas Workers to “Overseas Workers Welfare Administration”
or “OWWA.”
12. On 13 August 1994, THEN-PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS
issued Executive Order No. 195, which provided for the compulsory
Medicare coverage of Filipino overseas contract workers. The OWWA
was tasked to provide seed money and to administer the funds of the
program.
Complaint-Affidavit Page 5 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
13. Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as “The Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,” also mandated additional
functions of the OWWA.
14. Clearly, then, the provisions governing the OWWA and
the statutes and executive issuances governing it, and as distilled from
the historical development of the OWWA, the funds it administers are
sourced exclusively from contributions collected from employers and
Filipino overseas workers for the direct and exclusive benefit of
Filipino overseas workers. Collectively, therefore, these amounts
comprise a trust fund for the specific, direct, express, and exclusive
benefit of Filipino overseas workers and not for any other purpose—not
even for general public purposes. Neither is this a discretionary fund
that may be expended or disbursed from at the discretion of the
President.
THE FACTS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS
15. Respondent GMA, however, in conspiracy with, and with
the indispensable complicity of, her co-respondents herein, purposely
and systematically orchestrated the diversion and/or misuse of the
OWWA fund, financing questionable acquisitions by several Philippine
diplomatic posts in the Middle East, the humanitarian assistance to
Iraq, and the re-election bid of respondent GMA—all of which do not
contribute, and could never have contributed, to the direct and
exclusive benefit of the Filipino overseas workers. It is not a question
of whether or not sending a contingent to the Middle East is humane or
otherwise beneficial. It is a question of whether, in so doing,
respondents were in the regular performance of their duties by
sourcing the funding of these activities from the OWWA Fund.
16. In a Memorandum dated 12 March 2003, addressed to
respondent GMA, respondent Romulo, in his capacity as then-
Executive Secretary, sought the release of two hundred ninety-three
thousand, five hundred United States Dollars (USD 293,500.00),
purportedly to finance “preparatory activities” of the Philippine post in
Kuwait and the “purchase of vehicles” and “stockpiling” of the posts in
Lebanon, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Egypt, and Iran, in support of the US-
led war in Iraq.
A faithful reproduction of said Memorandum dated 12 March
2003 is attached hereto as Annex ―A‖ for the perusal and ready
reference of this Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
Complaint-Affidavit Page 6 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
17. Respondent GMA actually gave her imprimatur to the
foregoing request for funds—which had no direct and exclusive benefit
to Overseas Filipino Workers (hereinafter “OFWs”)—as readily
gleaned from her marginal note on the Memorandum dated 12 March
2003, which read “OK charge to OWWA.” This latest officially-
sanctioned pilferage of the trust fund did not include the amount of
fifty-three thousand United States Dollars (USD 53,000.00), which had
already been taken from the “POEA/OWWA” as mentioned in the
same Memorandum.
18. Respondent Romulo subsequently relayed Respondent
GMA‟s approval in a letter dated 15 March 2003 addressed to
respondent Angelo, then-OWWA Administrator.
A faithful reproduction of said Letter dated 15 March 2003 is
attached hereto as Annex ―B‖ for the perusal and ready reference of this
Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
19. In yet another Memorandum dated 5 May 2003,
respondent Romulo requested the release of no less than five million
Philippine Pesos (PhP 5,000,000.00), supposedly as operating expenses
for the so-called “Task Force for the Coordination of Philippine
Humanitarian Assistance to Iraq”—which, again, had absolutely no
direct and exclusive benefit to OWFs.
20. As with the Memorandum dated 12 March 2003,
respondent GMA likewise approved the foregoing request of
respondent Romulo by similarly affixing a marginal note “OK from
OWWA.”
A faithful reproduction of said Memorandum dated 5 May 2003 is
attached hereto as Annex ―C‖ for the perusal and ready reference of this
Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
21. In a letter dated 14 May 2003, respondent Romulo
informed respondent Angelo that respondent GMA had approved the
release of the requested funds from the OWWA.
A faithful reproduction of said Letter dated 14 March 2003 is
attached hereto as Annex ―D‖ for the perusal and ready reference of this
Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
22. In a Memorandum dated 1 July 2003, respondent Angelo
shelved the General Financial Assistance Program of the OWWA and
stopped the processing—nay, even the acceptance—of claims by OFWs
Complaint-Affidavit Page 7 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
thereunder. Said claims amounted to sixteen million, five hundred ten
thousand, nine hundred Philippine Pesos (PhP 16,510,900.00), which
roughly corresponded to the USD 293,500.00 requested by respondent
Romulo in his Memorandum dated 12 March 2003, on the pretext of
financing “preparatory activities” and for the “purchase of vehicles”
and “stockpiling” of other posts in the Middle East, in support of the
US-led war in Iraq.
A faithful reproduction of said Memorandum dated 1 July 2003 is
attached hereto as Annex ―E‖ for the perusal and ready reference of this
Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
23. The OWWA Board itself issued Board Resolution No. 38,
otherwise known as “The OWWA Omnibus Policies,” which limited
OWWA services to “contributing members” only and required OFWs
to pay USD 25.00 on a “per-contract basis,” effectively disenfranchising
other classes of OFWs. This is a flagrant violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which
consequently prompted the PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH to
challenge the constitutionality of said Board Resolution No. 38,
precisely because the laws creating the OWWA created no distinctions
on the classes of OFWs—i.e., whether “contributing” or not; whether on
a contract or not.
24. The foregoing facts and circumstances clearly show an
institutionalized pattern of decreasing expenditures for OFWs by
systematically suspending certain programs and features of the OWWA
or reducing the number of beneficiaries, or both, in an obvious attempt
to free the OWWA fund for utilization in “projects” and other activities
completely unrelated to the direct and exclusive benefit of OFWs.
25. The previous administration had been in the forefront of
these developments as shown by a Memorandum dated 20 June 2002
signed by THEN-CABINET SECRETARY RICARDO SALUDO, relaying
respondent GMA‟s instructions for the OWWA Board to issue
guidelines for “the management and utilization of the OWWA Fund”
and “the streamlining of operations and administrative systems and
procedures.”
A faithful reproduction of said Memorandum dated 20 June 2002
is attached hereto as Annex ―F‖ for the perusal and ready reference of
this Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
26. This institutionalized de facto control over the OWWA
fund led to opportunities for flagrant, unabated abuse, prominent
Complaint-Affidavit Page 8 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
among which is the channeling of hundreds of millions of contributions
by OFWs to the PHIC for purely partisan purposes, particularly to
enhance the electoral campaign of respondent GMA in the 2004
elections.
27. As far back as 20 November 2002, respondent Duque,
then-President and Chief Executive Officer of the PHIC, had submitted
to respondent GMA a proposed Executive Order providing for the
transfer of health insurance funds of OFWs from the OWWA to the
PHIC. Respondent Duque made no bones about the intended purpose
of the proposed Executive Order as readily gleaned from its very
wording, thus:
“PHIC will need a reasonable lead time to ensure
smooth turnover of OWWA medicare to PHIC and manage
some resistance from certain quarters which will be
affected by the change. It is respectfully requested that the
proposed Executive Order (EO) be approved by her
excellency before the year ends. The proposed transfer will
have a significant bearing on 2004 elections and on the
President‟s desire to provide health insurance to 8M
indigents by the end of 2003. I will be available to explain
in greater detail the far reaching political implications of
the transfer. May I ask that we meet personally? My
direct line is . . . .” (Emphasis supplied)
A faithful reproduction of said Memorandum dated 20 November
2002 is attached hereto as Annex ―G‖ for the perusal and ready
reference of this Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
28. Accordingly, on 14 February 2003, respondent GMA
issued Executive Order No. 182, transferring the Medicare funds of the
OWWA to the PHIC—despite the clear absence of any consultation
with the major stakeholders. When Executive Order No. 182 drew
protests from migrant workers‟ groups, respondent Duque was
constrained to propose its withdrawal on the obvious ground of non-
consultation and non-publication prior to its approval as gleaned from
his letter dated 6 January 2004 addressed to respondent Romulo.
A faithful reproduction of said Letter dated 6 January 2004 is
attached hereto as Annex ―H‖ for the perusal and ready reference of this
Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
29. Despite respondent Duque‟s acknowledgment of non-
consultation, however, the OWWA Board, in Resolution No. 005,
Complaint-Affidavit Page 9 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
approved the transfer of five hundred thirty million, three hundred
eighty-two thousand, four hundred forty-six Philippine Pesos (PhP
530,382,446.00) from the OWWA Medicare Fund to the PHIC.
A faithful reproduction of said Resolution No. 005 approved on 2
February 2004 is attached hereto as Annex ―I‖ for the perusal and ready
reference of this Honorable Office and is made an integral part hereof.
30. While procedural propriety dictates that this Complaint-
Affidavit may be properly filed with, and resolved by, the OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, I cannot nonetheless ignore verities that would
effectively render the filing of this Complaint-Affidavit with that office an
exercise in futility—and frustration. Recently, the Committee on
Justice of the House of Representatives found the impeachment
complaint against OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ sufficient in
form and substance, effectively finding merit in allegations that she
virtually slept on the cases filed with her office and, worse, that she was
(and still is) a lackey of respondent GMA.
31. Simply put, I have no reasonable expectation that my
Complaint-Affidavit would be favorably resolved—if the Ombudsman is
even minded to act on it in the first place.
32. It is for the foregoing reasons that I am filing this
Complaint-Affidavit with the Department of Justice for the purpose of
conducting the necessary preliminary investigation(s) and, if resolved
favorably, for transmittal/endorsement to the Office of the
Ombudsman or to such other appropriate tribunal or body for
appropriate action and/or further proceedings.
THE CHARGES
33. I hereby charge respondents GMA, Angelo, Duque, and
Romulo with the following crimes and/or offenses:
a. Violation of Republic Act No. 7080, otherwise
known as “The Anti-Plunder Act”;
b. Violation of Articles 217 and 220 of the
Revised Penal Code;
c. Qualified Theft;
d. Violation of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise
known as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”;
Complaint-Affidavit Page 10 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
e. Culpable violation of the Constitution,
particularly Section 29 (3) of Article VI of the 1987
Philippine Constitution;
f. Violation of Section 261 of the Omnibus
Election Code; and
g. Violation of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise
known as “The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees.”
34. I shall discuss the foregoing violations in seriatim
hereunder, thus:
A. VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE ANTI-PLUNDER ACT”
35. The following salient provisions of the Anti-Plunder Act
are worth quoting hereunder, thus:
“Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act,
the term:
“a. „Public Officer‟ means any person holding any
public office in the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or
contract.
“b. „Government‟ includes the National
Government, and any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“d. „Ill-gotten wealth‟ means any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any person
within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by
him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees,
agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes:
Complaint-Affidavit Page 11 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
“1. Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the
public treasury;
“2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any/or
entity in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position of the public
officer concerned;
“3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
“xxx xxx xxx;
“5. 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
“6. By taking undue 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.
“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
Complaint-Affidavit Page 12 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
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. [As
Amended by Section 12, Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death
Penalty Law)]
“xxx xxx xxx.
“Section 4. Rule of Evidence.—For purposes of
establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary
to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused
in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient
to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or
criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy.” (Emphasis supplied)
36. There is no question that respondents herein were, at all
times material to the present charge, “public officers” within the
purview of the Anti-Plunder Act. And the amount in question—five
hundred thirty, three hundred eighty-two, four hundred forty-six
Philippine Pesos (PhP 530,382,446.00)—is way beyond the
jurisdictional amount for the application of the Anti-Plunder Act,
which, in defining “Ill-Gotten Wealth,” makes no distinction on the
nature of the amounts plundered, i.e., whether public or private in
character. And where the law does not distinguish, neither should the
courts of law or, in this case, this Honorable Office.
37. The inevitable question that comes to the fore at this
juncture, however, is whether respondents, precisely as public officers,
had committed any of the acts and/or omissions that amount to the
crime of plunder.
38. Section 1 (d) of Republic Act No. 7080 as amended is
worth reiterating and quoting anew, as it enumerates what may be
characterized as “predicate crimes” in plunder, thus:
“d. „Ill-gotten wealth‟ means any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any person
within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by
him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees,
agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes:
Complaint-Affidavit Page 13 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
“1. Through misappropriation, conversion,
misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the
public treasury;
“xxx xxx xxx
“3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
“xxx xxx xxx
“5. 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
“6. By taking undue 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.
39. It is my position that respondents have committed the
first, third, fifth, and sixth predicate crimes for a finding of plunder.
Through misappropriation,
conversion, misuse, or malversation of
public funds or raids on the public
treasury.
By the illegal or fraudulent
conveyance or disposition of assets
belonging to the National government or
any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or
controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.
40. “Misappropriation” is defined as “[t]he unauthorized,
improper, or unlawful use of funds or other property for purpose other
Complaint-Affidavit Page 14 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
than that for which intended.”2 Thus, the term may be safely construed
to encompass the term “misuse.” “Malversation,” in turn, pertains “to
all grave and punishable faults committed in the exercise of a charge or
commission (office), such as corruption, exaction, concussion, larceny.”3
41. Thus, the essential feature of the first predicate crime is
the utilization of public funds for a purpose or purposes other than that
or those for which the funds were intended.
42. As extensively discussed above, the OWWA Fund,
simply put, was established for the specific, direct, and exclusive
benefit of OFWs. Therefore, for amounts to be disbursed therefrom,
there must first be a showing that the expenditures will redound to the
benefit of OFWs. As will be discussed more extensively hereunder,
however, it is clear that the items for which amounts were disbursed
from the OWWA Fund had absolutely nothing to do with the
amelioration of OFWs.
43. Anyone, of course, is at liberty to stretch the term
“purpose” to its ridiculous extremes. But the proposed transfer of
hundreds of millions—specifically, five hundred thirty, three hundred
eighty-two, four hundred forty-six Philippine Pesos (PhP
530,382,446.00)—from the OWWA Medicare Fund to the PHIC was
redundant, if not altogether unnecessary. Even when the OWWA Fund
was still known as the “Welfare and Training Fund for Overseas
Workers,” it had already contemplated, and consequently provided for,
“insurance coverage, social work assistance, legal assistance, placement
assistance, cultural services, remittances services, and the like.”
44. Clearly, then, respondents are guilty of plunder through
the first predicate crime, as the diversion of the aforementioned amount
had absolutely nothing to do with the intended purposes of the OWWA
Fund.
45. It is also for the foregoing reasons that respondents are
likewise guilty of plunder through the third predicate crime, precisely
because the disposition of amounts from the OWWA Fund, not being
pursuant to the purposes for which it was established, are consequently
illegal and fraudulent within the purview of the applicable provision.
2 BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY 998 (6th ed. 1991).
3 BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY 998 (6th ed. 1991).
Complaint-Affidavit Page 15 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
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.
46. It will be recalled that, on 14 February 2003, respondent
GMA issued Executive Order No. 182 transferring the Medicare Fund
of the OWWA to the PHIC, which, as discussed earlier, amounts to
misappropriation, misuse, and malversation and which, in any event, is
an illegal or fraudulent disbursement punishable as plunder.
47. Curiously, however, respondent Duque, who seemed to
have arrogated upon himself the power to issue an executive order by
drafting one himself, made it perfectly clear to respondent GMA that
the transfer of hundreds of millions of the OWWA Medicare Fund to
the PHIC would be politically beneficial to respondent GMA, more
specifically to the latter‟s re-election bid in the 2004 Presidential
elections. These acts, therefore, amount to the “implementation of an
order intended to benefit a particular person or a special interest,”
which is the essence of the fifth predicate crime for a finding of
plunder.
By taking undue 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.
48. Since respondents committed all the foregoing predicate
crimes precisely because of their official positions, they have definitely
taken undue advantage of their official position or authority to unjustly
enrich themselves at the expense of the OFWs for whose benefit the
OWWA Fund was established.
B. VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 217 AND 220 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE.
49. Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, in turn, provides:
“CHAPTER FOUR
“Malversation of Public Funds or Property
Complaint-Affidavit Page 16 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
“Article 217. Malversation of public funds or
property.—Presumption of malversation.—Any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate
the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent,
or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any
other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly
or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property, shall suffer:
“xxx xxx xxx.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“4. The penalty of reclusión temporal in its medium
and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more
than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two
thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the
penalty shall be reclusión temporal in its maximum period
to reclusión perpetua.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“The failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer,
shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing
funds or property to personal uses.”4 (As amended by
Republic Act No. 1060, approved June 12, 1945. Emphasis
supplied.)
50. Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code further provides:
“Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or
property.—Any public officer who shall apply any public
fund or property under his administration to any public
use other than that for which such fund or property were
appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty
of prisión correccional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if
4 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 217.
Complaint-Affidavit Page 17 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
by reason of such misapplication, any damage or
embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In
either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary special disqualification.
“If no damage or embarrassment to the public
service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50
per cent of the sum misapplied.”5
51. As readily gleaned from the provisions quoted above, the
mere acts of “consenting to” and “permitting” the taking of public
funds will suffice for a violation of this Article. By approving the
requests by respondent Romulo for disbursements that were
completely unrelated to the purposes for which the OWWA Fund was
established—i.e., for the specific, direct, and exclusive benefit of
OFWs—respondents are guilty of violating Articles 217 and 220.
C. QUALIFIED THEFT
52. Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code defines and
penalizes the crime of Qualified Theft, thus:
“Article 310. Qualified theft.—The crime of theft shall
be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
than those respectively specified in the next preceding
article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion
of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.6
53. “Theft,” in turn, “is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without
the latter‟s consent.”7
5 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 220.
REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 310. As amended by Republic Act 120 and Batas
6
Pambansa Blg. 71, May 1, 1980
7 REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 308.
Complaint-Affidavit Page 18 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
54. “Qualified Theft,” simply put, is theft committed under
any of the “qualifying circumstances” enumerated in Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, including, among such other circumstances, grave
abuse of confidence. It is my earnest submission that respondents have,
through grave abuse of the confidence reposed in them, committed
qualified theft.
55. No less than the 1987 Constitution characterizes “public
office [as] a public trust.” And, being public officers, respondents are
enjoined, at all times, to “be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”8
56. Thus, as public officers, respondents have a fiduciary
duty to preserve the confidence of the trust reposed in them by no less
than the People of the Republic of the Philippines—specifically, in this
case, a subset of the population comprising OFWs.
57. As the then-highest officer of the Republic of the
Philippines, respondent GMA gravely abused the confidence reposed
in her by the people by willfully permitting the illegal and fraudulent
misuse, misappropriation, and malversation of the OWWA Fund
(which are merely held and administered in trust by the Government)
by, first, permitting the transfer of amounts to defray expenses
completely unrelated to the purposes for which the OWWA Fund was
established and, second, allowing the transfer of hundreds of millions
from the OWWA Medicare Fund to the PHIC—both of which were
systematically orchestrated to illegally fund respondent GMA‟s re-
election bid for the 2004 Presidential elections.
58. This intent to gain by respondents, especially by
respondent GMA, committed in the course of, and precisely due to, the
exercise of their public functions, and in grave abuse of the confidence
reposed in them as public officials executing a public trust, suffices for a
finding of qualified theft, defined and penalized in Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code.
VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019,
D.
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT”
59. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 enumerates the
corrupt practices of public officers, to wit:
8 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, art. xi, § 1.
Complaint-Affidavit Page 19 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
“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.
“xxx xxx xxx
“(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.
“xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis supplied)
60. Again, as with Articles 217 and 220 of the Revised Penal
Code, the mere acts of “persuading,” “inducing,” and “influencing” a
public officer to violate “rules and regulations duly promulgated by
competent authority” or to commit “an offense in connection with the
official duties of the latter,” or allowing oneself to be “persuaded,”
“induced,” and/or “influenced,” suffices for a violation of Republic Act
No. 3019.
61. The nature of the OWWA Fund is indisputable.
Respondents—especially respondent GMA—being public officers, are
in fact charged with knowledge of this fact. Therefore, to draw
amounts from the OWWA Fund for expenditures completely unrelated
to the purposes for which it was established constitutes an offense in
connection with respondents‟ respective official duties.
62. Indeed, not only have they “persuaded,” induced,” or
“influenced” each other—specifically through the various memoranda
Complaint-Affidavit Page 20 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
and letters exchanged among them—they have actually
“institutionalized” the graft by enacting Executive Order No. 182,
transferring the Medicare funds of the OWWA to the PHIC—despite
the clear absence of any consultation with the major stakeholders. It
was only when said Executive Order drew protests from migrant
workers‟ groups that respondent Duque was constrained to propose its
withdrawal.
63. Respondent Duque himself is clearly guilty of corrupt
practices, not only for communicating the partisan political
ramifications of the transfer of amounts from the OWWA Fund to the
PHIC, but also for himself causing the drafting of an Executive Order
for respondent GMA’s approval.
E.CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
PARTICULARLY SECTION 29 (3) OF ARTICLE VI OF THE 1987
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
64. Section 29 (3) of Article VI of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution clearly and expressly provides that “[a]ll money collected
on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a
special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if
any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.”9
(Emphasis supplied)
65. The OWWA Fund—by its very nature and by express
statutory edicts—is meant for the direct and exclusive benefit of OFWs.
Thus, any disbursements from said fund should be solely for the
aforementioned purpose. By requesting for amounts allegedly to beef
up diplomatic posts in the Middle East and to put together a contingent
for humanitarian aid in the Middle East and, most important of all,
approving said requests for disbursements to be drawn from the
OWWA Fund, respondents have clearly violated the constitutional
proscription quoted above.
66. Further, respondents are likewise guilty of violating the
Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by creating classifications
of OFWs entitled to avail of the benefits under the OWWA Fund when
no such classifications were ever provided in the statutes creating the
OWWA Fund.
9 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, art. vi, § 29.
Complaint-Affidavit Page 21 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
F. VIOLATION OF SECTION 261 OF THE OMNIBUS
ELECTION CODE
67. Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code expressly
prohibits the use of public funds and/or money deposited in trust for
an election campaign.10 Respondents can lie, and have in fact lied,
through their teeth and deny their criminal intent to divert hundreds of
millions from the OWWA Fund to the PHIC for partisan political
purposes, particularly to ensure the re-election bid of respondent GMA
in the 2004 Presidential Elections.
68. Considering the communication by respondent Duque to
respondent GMA, however, specifically the partisan political
ramifications of the diversion of said amounts to the PHIC, it is clear
that there exist sufficient grounds to investigate the proposed transfer
of funds to the PHIC.
G.VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES”
69. Public officials and employees are bound to be
accountable to the people and to discharge their duties with utmost
responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty and to act with
patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest
over personal interest.
70. Respondents—especially respondent GMA—have
flagrantly and shamelessly violated the trust reposed in them by the
People of the Republic of the Philippines by systematically raiding and
pilfering the OWWA Fund.
71. Further, Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise
known as “The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees,” expressly and categorically enjoins all public
officials and employees to “always uphold the public interest over and
above personal interest” and for “[a]ll government resources and
powers of their respective offices [to] be employed and used efficiently,
effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in
public funds and revenues.”11
10 OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE, § 261.
11 R.A. No. 6713, § 4 (a).
Complaint-Affidavit Page 22 of 23
Francisco I. Chavez v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
72. By schemingly facilitating the diversion of the OWWA
Fund for activities alien to its avowed purpose of directly and
exclusively benefiting OFWs—particularly, for utilizing hundreds of
millions of the OWWA Fund to finance the re-election bid of
respondent GMA, respondents have fallen far short of the degree of
fidelity to the trust reposed in them.
73. It is for all the foregoing reasons that I file this Complaint-
Affidavit.
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ
Affiant
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of April, 2011, in
the City of Manila. I further certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and I am satisfied that he has executed this Complaint-Affidavit
freely and voluntarily and has understood the contents hereof of his
own personal knowledge and on the basis of authentic records.
ADMINISTERING OFFICER
Complaint-Affidavit Page 23 of 23
