Ombudsman seeks ex-PNoy’s side on plea to reconsider DAP decision

Investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman has ordered former President Benigno Simeon Aquino III to comment on the motions seeking to reconsider the anti-graft office's decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) case.

The complainants, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate, Renato Reyes, Benjamin Valbuena, Dante LA Jimenez, Mae Paner, Antonio Flores, Gloria Arellano and Bonifacio Carmona, Jr., on March 13 filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the Ombudsman's decision to clear Aquino of liability in the case.

They claimed that the Ombudsman erred in failing to find probable cause to indict Aquino and former Budget Secretary Florencio Abad for technical malversation and graft.

The Ombudsman said Abad also filed his own MR for the case. Aquino was given 15 days from notice to file a comment on the MRs.

According to the decision issued on March 7, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales found probable cause to charge Abad with usurpation of legislative powers, a crime under the Revised Penal Code, over the implementation of the DAP. 

However, the criminal and administrative charges against Aquino and former Budget Undersecretary Mario Relampagos have been dismissed.

The Ombudsman's investigation showed that Abad illegally encroached on the powers of Congress, saying he modified the provisions on savings of the 2012 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

NBC No. 541 allowed the DBM to withdraw “unobligated allotments of agencies with low levels of obligations as of June 30, 2012, both for continuing and current allotments.”

The Ombudsman, however, said there was no probable cause to charge the respondents with technical malversation, as claimed by the complainants.

Moreover, the Ombudsman also found no probable cause to charge the respondents for violation Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The complainants, however, argued that Aquino and Abad exposed evident bad faith and inexcusable negligence in their alleged act.

In her ruling, the Ombudsman said: "It cannot be said that the respondents acted with either evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in implementing the authority to transfer funds to augment deficient items in the GAA."

"It cannot be likewise said that they acted without care or with conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected."

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman said the administrative complaint against Aquino and Relampagos should be dismissed.

The Ombudsman said it had no jurisdiction over Aquino's administrative charges.

Relampagos' administrative charges, on the other hand, were dismissed for lack of merit. 

The Ombudsman decision was the basis of former Manila City councilor Greco Belgica in filing the disbarment case against Morales with the Supreme Court.

"In absolving the (former) president of criminal liability by omitting his name in the discussion relative to the finding of probable cause against former (Budget) Secretary Florencio Abad, the Filipino people was deprived of their right to procedural due process," Belgica's complaint stated. 

"Hence, the Ombudsman violated her lawyer's oath when she deprived of their right to procedural due process, a right enshrined in our Constitution and mandated by law," it added.

The high court, however, unanimously junked the disbarment case only a few days later for lack of merit. — MDM, GMA News