Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN! North Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, _ represented by: Assistant Director Medardo G. de Lemos, and ATTY. LEVITO D, BALIGOD, Complainants, versus - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, JANET LIM NAPOLES, JESSICA LUCILA “GIGI” REYES, JOSE ANTONIO EVANGELISTA, ET AL, Respondents. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Complainant, ~ versus - JUAN PONCE ENRILE, JESSICA LUCILA G._ REYES, JOSE ANTONIO V. EVANGELISTA II, ETAL, Respondents. OMB-C-C-13-0318 For: Plunder under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080 OMB-C-C-13-0396 For: Plunder under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080 and Violation of Section 3(¢) of RA. No. 3019 - undue injury - unwarranted benefitsCOUNTER-AFFIDAVIT 1, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, of legal age, Filipino, and with address at 2307 Morado Street, Dasmarifias Village, Makati City, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that: 1. Thave been in public office for forty-seven (47) years since 1966 to the present, except for a few and brief periods of interregnum, in our Government's Executive _ branch [Departments of Finance (1966-1968), Justice (1968-1970), National Defense (1970-1986), and National Security Council (1972-1986)] and Legislative branch [Assemblyman (1978-1984), Member of the House of Representatives (9% Congress), Member of the Senate (6, 10, 11°, 138 thru 164 Congress), and President of the Senate (Nov. 2008-July 2013)]-1 EXECUTIVE BRANCH, Chatman National Security Counc Brective Comite 1972-1586, Miniter/Socretary Ministy/ Deparment of National Defense 3070-1986 Secretary and coneurently Department of justice ‘Chairman, Board of 1968-1970 Pardons and Parole LUnderscratary ane Department of Finances Acting Secretary and 19661968. ‘concurrently Acting lnsurance Commissioner Commissioner of Customs [LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, om Congress Minority Laer (reigned as Senate President on July 22,203) 15 Congress Rovslected President ofthe Philippine Senate by 17 Senators on July 26, 2010 (resigned on June 5, 2013) 108 Congress ‘260 President ofthe Philippine Senate (lected by 18 senators ‘on November 17,2008) (Chatrman Commits on Finance‘Committe on Public Services ‘August 6, 2008 - Novernber 18,2008 ‘Vie Chairman Committe on Banks ‘August 28, 2007 - November 18,2008, Comte on Ways and Means ‘August I. 2007 - Noveznber 18,2008 Membership ‘Commute on Accountability of Public Offices and Investigations (Blue Rider) ‘Commilise on Actounts Gomtts on Agesian Reform Committ on Agaculture and Food ‘Gomumaes on Constnstiona!Ausondment, Revision of Codes and Laws {Commits on Beonomie Aare ‘Committee on Education, Arts andl Culture Commits on Egy Committe on Environment and Natural Resources ‘Commits on Foreiga Relations ‘Commute on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises ‘Committee on justice and Human Rights Committe on Loca! Government ‘Committe on National Defense and Security CConunittee on Peace Unification and Reconeliation ‘Somuite on Pubic Order and Moga! Drags ‘Comnuttee on Rules Committe on Science and Teednology ‘Committe on Socal Justice, Welfare ard Rural Development ‘Committe on Trade and Commerce ‘Committee on Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement Committe on Youth, Women and Family Relations Commission om Appointments Powercom LovEA, 389 Congrest Senator 2 Senateof the Philippines 2ooezo10 Member Committe on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon) (Commits an Banks, Financial Istisutions and Currencies ‘Commitee on Constitutional Amendzeats| Coats on Eonomie Afates Committe en Edueaton, Arte and Culture Committee on Energy {Committe on Environment and Naturl Resources Committe 9n Finance (Commits on Foreign Relations {Comities on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises ‘Commitee on justice and Human Rights {Committee on Usbor, Employment and Human Resources {Comittee on Local Government ‘Comattes on National Defense and Security Committe on Pic Oder and Tegal Drags Comittee on Public Services2, 1am proud to say that I had served my various public offices with probity, integrity and public esteem. In those long years of public service, I have never been charged in court, up t© the present, of any criminal corruption, much less in the magnitude of plunder, ‘Commies on Rules CCotumit on Ways and Means ‘Commision on Appoinsnents 128 Congrese Senator Senate of the Pilippines 3995-2001 Chairmen ‘Committee on Government Corporstions and Pubic Enterprises (Committe on Ways and Means ‘Vie Chairman Committe on Finance Comune on Public Services Committe on Accountability of Publi Officers and Investigator (oe Ribbon) 10th Congress ‘Asstant Minority Flor Leader 1988 Gaiman 19352998 ‘Commitee on Government Corporations ard Palle Enterprises Committee on Ways and Means 98 Congress Representative House of Reprorertatives Ye Distctof Cagayan Congress of the Philippines pestered Congress Senator Senate ofthe Palppines 957-1992 ‘Senate Minority Floor Leader Minority Floot Leader, Commission on Appointments Member, Senate Fecoral Tribunal Member, All Senate Standing Commies Assemblyman Invern Batasang Pambansa ‘Cagayen Valley (Region weisee3. Sadly, it is only now, in the twilight years of my government service, that I stand accused of trumped-up charges of corruption before the Ombudsman, in connection with the implementation of the “Priority Development Assistance Fund” (PDAP) allegedly during the years 2004-2010. 4. The charges against me are absolutely baseless. The Executive department, through the implementing agencies, is tasked by law to properly implement all projects funded by the PDAF. Any irregularity or unlawful act that may have been committed in the implementation of the projects is the sole responsibility of the implementing agencies and whoever conspired with them. My only involvement in the utilization of my PDAF is the endorsement of specific projects of local government units (LGU). I have not influenced any government agency to award any project to any NGO. [have not received any commission, rebate or kickback in connection with such projects, I was not part of any conspiracy to steal or plunder public funds or to violate any law. LEGAL BASIS AND HISTORY OF THE PDAF 5. I must explain at the outset that the PDAF, as well as its purpose for utilization and conditions for disbursement, are expressly provided for in the appropriations law (General Appropriations Act or GAA) covering the specific fiscal year for which the PDAF is appropriated. The basis of the appropriation ill is the expenditures program submitted by the President to Congress within thirty (80) days from the opening of every regular session of Congress? 6. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court concerning the PDAF, the Court succinctly traces the PDAF history within the period covered by this investigation: It was in the year 2000 that the “Priority Development ‘Assistance Fund” (PDAF) appeared in the GAA. The 12 The 1987 Philippine Constution, Arte VIL Section 2 [hereinafter refered to asthe "Prippine Cansttion”) 2 Elgcn ef 2. Hon. Sen. Paquito N. Ocho G.I No, 208566; SS Present 8. lento Hon, Frain Dion, etal, C- No. 208485; Padrito Mf. Nepomuceno om Pres. Beniga S. ‘Apuino Ii, GR. No, 209281 (November 19,2013) [hereinafter referred to a8 the “DAF Cas. «Tay ting Special Provision 1, Arla XLIX, RA 8760 (2900 PDAF Article) which providesrequirement of “prior consultation with the respective Representative of the District” before PDAF funds were directly released to the implementing agency concemed was explicitly stated in the 2000 PDAF Article, Moreover, realignment of funds to any expense category was expressly allowed, with the sole condition that no amount shall be used to fund personal services and other personnel benefits The succeeding PDAE provisions remained the same in view of the re-enactment® of the 2000 GAA for the year 2001 F. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Arroyo) Administration (2001-2010). ‘The 20027 PDAF Article was brief and straightforward as it ‘merely contained a single special provision ardering the release of the funds directly to the implementing agency or local government unit concerned, without further qualieations. The following year, 20038 the same single provision was present, Special Provision 1 Use and release of the Fund, The amount herein appropriated shal be used to fund priority programs and projects a indicatd under Pucpove Y PROVIDED, ‘That such amount shall be relesed diectiy to. the implementing agency concemed “upon prior contultation with the respective Represertative of the Distr PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the herein allocation may be realigned as necessary to any expense ealegery: PROVIDED, FINATLY, That no amount shall be weed to fund personal sorvices and other personal benefits. Emphasis supplied) 12, eting Special Provision 1, 2000 POAF Artic 1d. cling Section 25(7), Article Vi, of the 1987 Phiippine Constitution (1987 Constitution which provides that "EE, by the and of any fal year, the Congress shall Dave failed to pass the general appropriation bil or the ensuing fiscal yeas, ie genera) "ppropriatons law for the preceding Mscl year shall be deerted recnacied and shall femain in force and effect untl the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress." (Emphass plied) {i citing Special Provision 1 Arse, RA 962 (002 PDAP Article) which provides 1, Use and Release ofthe Fund. The amount herein appropriated shall be use to funu priority programs and projects orto fund counterpart fot forcignasssted programs and projects: PROVIDED, That such amount shall be released directly to the Implementing gency or Local Government Unit concerned. (Emphasis supplied) 1 tng Special Provision 1, Attele XLVI, RA 9206, 2003 GAA (2003 POAP Article) ‘which provides Special Provision 4. Use and Release of the and. The amount herein appropriated shall be wed to fund priority programs and projects or to fund the requived ‘counterpart for foreignassted programs and projects: PROVIDED. That such amount shal be feleaseddizety tothe inplementing agency or Local Government Unit concerned: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That fe eloatons authorized herein may be realigned t0 any expense class, if deemed necessery: PROVIDED, FURTHERMORE, That a maxistam often percent‘with simply an expansion of purpose and express authority to realign. Nevertheless, the provisions in the 2003 budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways? (DPWH) and the DepEd: required prior consultation with Members of Congress on the aspects of implementation, delegation and project list submission, respectively. In 2004, the 2005 GAA was re-enacted ™ In 2005,% the PDAE Article provided that the PDAF shall be used “to fund priority programs and projects under the ten (GOK) of the authorized allocations by diswict may be used for the Dprocurnentof rice ard other base commodities which shall be purchased From the National Food Audios, + pat ene ttng Special Provision, Asile XVII, RA 8206 which provides: SSpecat Provision No. 1 - Restieton on the Delegetion of Project Implementation “The implementation ofthe projc's funded herein shall not be delegated to ther agencies, exeapt those projets to be implemented by the Engineering Drigedss of the AFP and inerdepartment projects undertaken by othe! lies and agencies inching local governatent unit with demonstrated ‘apsbilty to acrally implement the projects by themselves upon “ensulation with the Members of Congress concemed. In all cases the DPWH shall exorcise technical supervision over projets. Emphases supplied) Id, cig Spaca Provision3, Article XI RA 9206 which provides ‘Special Provision No.3 - Submission of the List of School Bullings: Witkin Bb aye afer the sign of this Act into law, (DepEd) after consultation ‘withthe representative ofthe legislative istitconcered, shall submit to DBM the lst of 50% of school buildings to be constructed every tuniipality x, The lst os submited shal be the basis for the release of funds, (emphasis supplcd) 1 iy cing GR. No, 208566. "21d, ting Speca Provision 1, Article L, RA 9836 (2005 PDAF Article) which provides: Special Provision(s) 1. Use and Relesse of the Fund. The amount appropriated herein shall be used to fand priority programs and projects under the ten point Spends of the national government and shall be released directly tothe Implementing agencies se incicated hereunder, 0 wis PARTICULARS] _PRoGnaWenocr _| BUEMERTING Tr — | Fara oT Eien’ | DBA TESDAT | Ce Susy tee Sa FEED /CHED/ SUL | Assn dig Fens OOH Spy / ‘Coumcatetonns | Mepia | Sion maa 1 ‘Specialty Hospitals ‘Aafistance to indigent Patents | UUs ‘at the Hospitals Devalved to LGUsand RIE” point agencia of the national government and shall be released directly to the implementing agencies.” It also introduced the program menu concept, which is essentially alist of general programs and inplementing agencies from which a particular PDAF project may be subsequently chosen by the identifying ‘authority. The 2005 GAA was re-enacted" in 2006 and hence, ‘operated on the same bases. In similar regard, the program ‘menu concept was consistently integrated into the 2007, 2008,16 2009,” and 201015 GAAs, ‘Textually, the PDAF Articles frome 2002 to 2010 were silent with respect tothe specific amounts ellocated for the dividual legisiators, fs well as their participation in the proposnl amd identification of PDAF projects to be funded. In contast to the PDAF Articles, however, the provisions under the DepEd School Building Program and the DPWH budget, similar to its predecessors, explicitly requied prior consultation with the concerned Member of Congress anent certain aspects of project implementation, Tinswranee Premio © vatnood] | Small & Medium cibss Enterprie/Lietbood | "CDA Comprehensive intated [DSWD | PN Dalvery of Seta Services ‘D Rural Barangey/ Raa leafiation | DOENER Elcreation ElWater | Consrtion a Waser System DPE Supply Tnsialnton ot Pipe] Pompe] [UUs Tanks F Finandat | Spee Programs and Popes | UGUe Assistance | to Address the ro-Poor Fropama of Goverment ‘GFube | Contraction TRepisRenaiit | DPT Woks isn of he foloorng™ Roads and Brg Flood Contrl/Schoo! alldings Howptls Hons Falites/ Pubic ‘Marks Mal Purpose Bulldings/Mali-Purpose Pavements FE Wrgatn | Construction Repair Rehab | DANTA ation of frigation Facies (Gaphasie plied) smi DAF Case, citing GR. No, 208866. See Special Provision 1, Arile XLVIL RA 9801, ‘Ste Special Provision 1, Article XLVI RA 9498, ‘Ste Spocal Provision 1, Article XLIX RA 9524, ‘See Spacnl Provision 1, Article XLVI, RA 9570. For instance, Special Provisions 2 and, Article XL, RA 6236 providing forthe 2005 Depa School Building Program, and Special Provisions 1 and 16, Article XVI, RA ‘5401 providing forthe 2007 DPWH Regular Budget respecively sat: 2005 DepEd Schoo! Building ProgramSignificantly, it was during this era that provisions which allowed formal participation of non-governmental ‘organizations (NGO) in the implementation of government Projects were introduced. In the Supplemental Budget for 2006, ‘with respect to the appropriation for school buildings, NGOs were, by law, encouraged to participate. For such purpose, the law stated that “the amount of at least P250 Million of the P500 Millon allotted for the construction and completion of schoo! buildings shall be made available to NGOs including the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and ‘industry, Inc. for its “Operation Barrio Schoo!” program] with capability and proven track records in the construction of public school buildings x x x"2 The same allocation was made available to NGOs in the 2007 and 2009 GAAs under the DepEd Budget: ‘Also, it was in 2007 that the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) issued Resolution No. 12-2007 dated June 23, SSpacal Provision No, 2 - Allocation of School Buildings: ‘The amount ‘ltted under Purpose 1 shal be apportioned as fellows: (1) fy percent {G0%) t be allocated pro~ata according 1 each legislative districts stdent population x» x (@) forty percent (0%) tobe allocated only among those FEgislave distete with classroom shortages xx G) ten peceent (108) 0 Deallocaed in accordance xxx “Space Provision No.9 ~ Submission ofthe List of Schoo! Buildings: Within ‘Saye ater he signing ofthis Act into law, the Dep after consultation swith the reprebentative ofthe lepitaive districts concerned, shall submit TOIDBM he lst of fly percent (S0%) of scoal buildings to be constructed ‘S every municipality xxx. The is ax submitted shall be the basis or the felease of funde xx. (Emphasis supplied) 2007 DPWH Regular Budget Special Provision No, 1 - Restietion on Delegation of Projoct plementation The niplementaton ofthe project funded herein shall not tr alugted to other agencies, except those projec to be implesnented by the AEP Corps. of Engineers, and inter-department projecs 10 be lndorken by ether offices and agencies, including local government units {Lests) with cemnstrated capably actually implement the project by ‘hemocives upon caneultation with the representaive of the legislative (stlet concerted “Special Provision No. 16 Resligament of Funds: The Secretary of Public Works and Highoraye ie authorized to realign funds relessed from Sppropriations x x x feomn one project/scope of work to. snether ERGVEDED. thet » x x (il) the request is with the concustence of the Tegislater concerned x xx. (Emphasis supplied) PDAP Care, citing GR. No, 208566 Hd, at359°50, ‘Ava primary axpect ofthe Philippine Government's publi procurement reform agenda, the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) was established by vitue of Republic Act No. S198 (0A. 5184) as an independent nts-agency body thats impartial, ‘Sezaparent and ellective with pevate eoctor representation. As established in Section 63 SERA 918s the GPPB shall have the following cites zed responsibiites:. To protect ‘tional interest in ell matles affecting pubic procurement, having dive regard Yo the10 2007 (GPPB Resolution 12-2007), amending the implementing rules and. regulations of RA 91842 the Government Procurement Reform Act, to include, as a form of negotiated procurement the procedure whereby the Procuring Entity (the implementing agency) may enter into a memorandum of agreement with an NGO, provided that “an appropriate law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to NGOs." THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, INCLUDING THE UTILIZATION OF PDAF ALLOCATIONS, IS THE EXCLUSIVE FUNCTION AND. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. ‘county’ regional and intematonal obligations; 2. To formulate and smendt public procurement policies, rules and egulasons, and amend, whevever necessary, the Etplementing lor and regulatione Part A (IRR-A): 3. To prepare a genetic procurement manual and standard bidding forms for Procurement 4 To ensure the proper implementation by the procuring entver of the Act is IRR-A and all other felevant rules and regulations pertaining to public procurement, 5. To establish fsainable tealning” program to develop the capacity of Government procurement Gitiers and employees, and 10 ensure the conduct of regular procurement tating programs by the procuring entities; and 6. To condact an annval review of the [Efecivenes of the Actand recommend any amendments thereto, as may be necessary ‘x xavalabloat htp-//errw goptagov ch/ahout-us/eppls biel (visited October 23, am. Entied “AMENDMENT OF SECTION 53 OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS PART A OF REPUBLIC ACT $184 AND PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES (ON PARTICIPATION OF NON.COVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT.” June 29,2007) Enlil “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MODERNIZATION, STANDARDIZATION [AND REGULATION OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ‘AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," January 10,2003) Sec. 48 Alternative Methods. ~ Subject {© the prior approval of the Head of the ‘rocating Entity or his duly suthoried representative, and whenever jushed by the Concitons provided inthis Act he Procuring Enety may, sn deder to promote economy ntetcency sso to any ofthe following stematve methods of Procurement (6) Negotiated Procurement ~ 9 method of Procurement that may be resorted under the fruaoidinary circumstances provide for in Section 53 ofthis Act and other instances that shall be spocfod in the IRR, whereby the Pocuring Entity directly negotiates & contact with a technically, lepaly and financially capable supplier, contactor or ‘consultant ‘As defined in Section So) of RA 984, the term “Procurng Entity" refers to any branch periment ollee, agency, or instumentaty of the government, including state Linversiies and colleges, governmentowned and/or consoled corporations government foansil pein, and local government sells precuring Goods, Eonsuling Seevies and inrastrectre Projects. POAP cae, citing GR No, 208566,n 7. Once the GAA is duly enacted into law, its execution or implementation (j¢., the utilization and disbursement of the appropriated funds) falls within the exclusive function and responsibility of the President which he exercises thru his control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.™* 8. In Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) v. Secretary of Budget and Management, the Supreme Court declared: Under the Constitution, the power of appropriation is vested in the Legislature, subject to the requirement that appropriation bills originate exclusively in the House of Representatives with the option of the Senate to propose or concur with the amendments. While the budgetary process commences from the proposal submitted by the President to Congress, itis the latter which concludes the exercise by crafting an appropriation act it may deem beneficial to the nation, based! con its own judgment, wisdom and purposes. Like any other pplece of legislation, the appropriation act may then be susceptible to objection from the branch tasked to implement it, by way of a Presidential veto. Thereafter, budget execution comes under the domain of the Executive branch which deals ‘with the operational aspects of the cycle including the allocation and release of fends earmarked for various projects. Simply prt, from the regulation of fund releases, the implementation of payment schedules and up to the actual spending of the funds specified in the law, the Executive takes the wheel, xx x 9. Ik is noteworthy, therefore, that the principal steps for the utilization and disbursement of the PDAF are within the exclusive function and responsibility of the implementing agencies of the Executive branch. Thus, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issues (i) the “Special Allocation Release Order” (SARO) upon determination that the proposed specific project comes within the authorized utilization of the PDAF and is covered by the appropriated amount and (ii) the “Notice of Cash Allocation” (NCA) upon release of funds to the implementing agency concerned. The implementing agency then awards the project to a qualified contractor (which may be an NGO when permitted by law), either by public bidding or negotiated contract, of the required services and/or materials required for the project, after which, the implementing agency disburses payments to the contractor as provided in their agreement, upon validation of performance/ delivery. 2% Philippine Consitation sopra note at Article VI, Secon 17, GR.No, 164867 (Apul 24,2012), emphasisupplicd2 THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, PARTICULARLY THE DBM AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, ARE MANDATED TO FOLLOW THE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS TO ENSURE THAT PROJECTS FUNDED BY PDAF ALLOCATIONS ARE PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED BY CONTRACTORS, INCLUDING NGOs. The implementing agencies (and not my Senate office) have the direct access to funds released by the Department of Budget and Management. 10. The present charge against me essentially relates to the alleged illegal or anomalous release, utilization and liquidation of the PDAF allotted to my office. However, as a legislator, my only involvement is to endorse the specific project to be funded and the beneficiary LGUs. It is the implementing agency’s obligation to verify the existence of, and monitor the release, use and liquidation of the funds to, the NGO. That the NGO is bogus or that there are irregularities in the implementation of the project is the principal responsibility of the implementing agency. Thus, the implementing agency cannot escape its obligations under the law by simply requiring me or anyone from my office to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which supposedly, ot makes it appear, that my Senate office shares such responsibility with the implementing agency, considering that the Ine itself does not prescribe the participation of my office in the execution of such MOA or in the implementation of the project. 11. The Executive department, through the DBM and the various implementing agencies under the relevant laws, are the only agencies involved in the process of utilizing and disbursing the PDAF. It must be noted that legislators do not have access to the PDAF. The General Appropriations Act for 20082 provides for the release of PDAF directly to the inrplementing agency, thus: 3) ‘Republic Act No 9498, “An Act Appropritng Funds for the Operation ofthe Goverment of the Republic of he Phipps from jnuary One fo December Tpy-One, To Thowsend aed Eight ofr Cer Purposes" Qanaary 8, 2008),XLVI. PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND. For fund requirements of priority development programs and projects as indicated hereunder 1P7,892,500,000 1, Use and Release of Fund, The amount appropriated herein shall be used to fund priority programs and projects under the ‘Ten-Point Legacy Agenda of the national government, and shall be released directly to the implementing agencies as indicated hereunder, t0 wit xxx 12, The General Appropriations Act for 2009 likewise contains an almost identical provision, fo wit: XLIX, PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND, For fund requirements of priority development programs and projects, as indicated hereunder ....-..n P9,665,027,000 1. Use and Relense of Fund, The amount appropriated herein shall be used to fund priority programs and projects under the ‘Ten-Point Legacy Agenda of the national government, and shall be released directly to the implementing agencies as indicated hereunder, to wit: 13. Under the foregoing laws, my office has no hand in the handling of the PDAF since it is the implementing agencies that receive the funds directly from DBM. ‘The implementing agencies are responsible for ensuring that the NGOs they deal with are legitimate and that the PDAF- funded projects are properly implemented. 14. Contrary to the allegation in the Complaints, my Senate office is not responsible for choosing, selecting, or in any way dealing with, the NGOs that may be used by the implementing agencies as 1% Republic Act No. 9524, “An Aet Approprsting Funds forthe Opertion ofthe Government of the Repub of he Plpines rom january One to Decider Tirty-One, Te Tanaeend cd [Ning afr Otay Purposes” January 2, 2009).14 conduits in the utilization of my PDAF, The GAAs for 2009, 2010 and 2011 expressly mandate the implementing agencies to ensure that the NGOs they deal with are legitimate. Thus, certain limitations on fund transfers to NGOs are imposed in Sections 75, 76, and 73, of the 2009, 2010 and 2011 GAAs respectively: Limitations on Fund Transfers to Non-government Organizations and People’s Organizations. It is hereby declared a, policy of the government not to allow non government organizations and people's organizations to [articipate in the implementation of any program or project of the national and local government units until such time that any earlier fund releases availed of by the said non- government organizations and people's organizations shall have been fully liquidated pursaant to pertaining accounting and auditing rules and regulations, as certified by the head of the agency concerned and the Commission on Audit auditor, ‘The government agency and local government units shall ‘ensure that the non-government organizations and people's organizations that they deal with are legitimate. A repozt on the fund releases indicating the names of non-government organizations and people's organizations shall be prepared by the agency and duly audited by the Commission on Audit and shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Appropriations. (Emphasis supplied) 15. In accordance with the above-mentioned obligations of the implementing agencies, Resolution No, 12-2007 of the GPPB which introduced certain amendments to the implementing rules and regulations of the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA), provide for the guidelines on an NGO's participation in public procurement: GENERAL GUIDELINES 4 When an appropriation law or ordinance ‘specifically earmarks an amount for projects to be specifically contracted out to NGOs, the procuring entity may select an NGO through competitive public bidding for negotiated procurement under Section §3 Qj) of the IRR-A, “Amendinnt of Section 53 of the Implementing Res and Regulations Prt of Republic Act stab und Describing Guilin an Prtcation of Non-Govermnental Orgonzaions fn Pubic Procuenen!= une 29, 207) [berenafter referred to as Resolution No. 12-2007]PUBLIC BIDDING LIMITED TO NGOs Ba 52 53 54 If the procuring entity decides to select the NGO trough competitive bidding, it shall advertise ‘and post the Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid in accordance with Section 21.21 of the IRR-A. In addition to the information enumerated under Section 21.1 of the IRR-A, the Invitation to Apply for Bligibility and to Bid shall also include () the legal basis or appropriation law or ordinance ‘which earmarks a specific amount or project to NGOs; and (fi) a statement that the project shall be limited to NGOs. ‘The determination of an NGO's eligibility shall be based on the submission of the documents enumerated under Sections 23.6 and 2471 of IRR-A x xx Other stages of the bidding process shall be ebserved in accordance with the relevant provisions of the IRR-A of RA. 9184, NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT UNDER SECTION 53.) OF IRR-A 61 62 63 64 To ensure transparency in the selection of NGO ‘through negotiated procurement, posting shall be done in accordance with Section 21.24 of the IRR- AoE RA 9184. After the required posting period, the procuring entity shall invite at least three (3) prospective NGOs to submit sealed price quotations. The procuring entity shall likewise require submission of the complete project proposal together with supporting feasibility studies, designs, plans, blueprints, budgets and charts. (On the date specified in the notice, the procuring. ‘entity shall open the price quotations and determine the Lowest Calculated Bid (LCB), Consistent with the nature of an NGO, no profit shall be included in its bid. Thus, the procuring ‘entity shall ensure that the LCB does not include any profit margin or mark-up. 616. 6 65 After determination that the proposal submitted by the NGO with the Lowest Calculated Bid complies with the technical requirements of the project, the procuring entity shall req submission of the following eligibility documents to ensure that said NGO is technically, legally, and financially capable to undertake the proposed project: 66 After submission of the eligibility requirements, the procuring entity shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the NGO which prescribes: 7. ‘TERMS OF PAYMENT 7A Payments to the NGO shall be made on a staggered basis, As a general rule, the selected NGO shall not receive additional payment unless reporting/ liquidation requirements of the previous payment shall have been complied swith, ‘The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the GPRA (as amended) also require the execution of a MOA between the implementing agency and the NGO, thus: Section 53, Negotiated Procurement Negotiated Procurement is a method of procurement of goods, infrastructure projects, and consulting services, whereby the procuring entity directly negotiates a contract with a technically, legally and financially capable supplier, contractor fo cansultant only in the following cases: (When an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to Non-Governmental ‘Organizations (NGOs), the procuring entity may enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with a: NGO, subject to guidelines to be issued by the GPPB. (Emphasis supplied) 2 Reo Inplemantng Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. S186, Otherwie Keown the Government Procrenent ReortAe, sanded by GPPB Resolution No, 12-2007wv 17. Both the GAAs and the GPRA, as well as their respective implementing rules and regulations, are consistent in imposing upon the implementing agency, not the legislator, the obligations to, first, make sure that the NGO is legitimate; second, manage and account for the funds released by the Department of Budget and Management; and finally, particularly if the implementation is delegated to an NGO, to ensure that the project is properly ingplemented. The obligation to control and account for the release of the PDAF falls on the implementing agency, not the legislatoz, precisely because the former has control over said funds. As repeatedly pointed out, the legislator has no access to his PDAF. 18. Even the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines™ explicitly provides that the head of the implementing agency has the obligation to ensure that all resources of the government are managed and used in accordance with law and regulations: Section 2. Declaration of Policy It is the declared policy of the State that all resources of the government shall be managed, expended or utilized in accordance with low and regulations, and safeguard against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition, with a view to ensizing efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the operations of government. The responsibilty to take care that such policy is faithfully adhered to rests directly with the chief or head ofthe government agency concerted. 19. Consistent with the Government Auditing Code, circulars from the Commission on Audit (COA) provide for the obligations of the implementing agencies in managing public funds. Under COA Circular No. 2007-001,% the implementing agency has the ation to monitor the implementation of the project by the NGO, to-wit: 45 Procedure for the Availment, Release and Utlization of Funds ‘The following procedures shall be strictly complied with: 451 The GO shall identify the priority projects under its WEP which may be implemented by the NGO/PO, their purpose/s, specifications and 3 Presidential Decree No. 145, Philippines June 1, 1978, Reve gullies the ranting ubzation ccuting end cuditing of he nds reese 19 [Now-Govenamental Organtatons Pepe's Organizations (NGOyPOs)(Cetober 25,2007). Orang a nsiting@ Government Autising Code ofthe452 453 intended beneficiaries as well as the time frame ‘within which the projects are to be undertaken x For each project proposal, the GO shall accredit the NGO/PO project partners through the Bids and ‘Awards Committee (BAC), or a committee created for the purpose, which shall formulate the selection criteria. The Committee shall perform the selection process, inckudling the screening of the qualification documents, ocular inspection of the NGOs/POs business site, and evaluation of the technical and financial capability of the NGO/PO. Upon proper evaluation, the GO, thru the Committee, shall ward the project to the NGO/PO which meets the minimum qualification requirements and the specifications for the project and which can satisfactorily undertake the project at terms most advantageous to the beneficiaries, taking fnto consideration the cast effectiveness of the project. The project shall be covered by a MOA ‘which shall embody the terms of reference such a) Project name, intended beneficiaries, benefits 10 be delivered, project cost estimates, a brief description of the project, and its site/location; b) Systems and procedures to implement the project such as, but not limited to, the procurement of goods and services by the NGO/PO and their distribution which should be documented and coordinated through the GO authorized officials and the respective barangays; ©) Time schedules for the releases of funds, period inspection/evaluation, reporting, ‘monitoring requirements, date of the commencement and date of completion; d) Submission of the required periodic financial and physical status reports; ©) Specific period to liquidate the funds ‘granted to the NGO/PO, with the GO; 652 53 h) Monitoring and inspection of project implementation and verification of financial records and reports of the NGO/PO by the GO; 455. In case of staggered fund releases or new fund release covered by another MOA, no NGO/PO shall receive additional releases uals an interim, Fund Utlization Report of the previous release cortified by its Accountant and approved by its President/Chaleman is first complied with, showing @ summary of expenses and a status report of accomplishment evidenced by picture. ‘The validity ofthe document shall be veritied by the intomal auditor or equivalent official of the Oo. The “GO shall keep and maintain financial and accounting records of funds granted to the NGO/PO in accordance with the Philippine Financial Reporting Standards (PFRS) ‘The signing officials of the GO to the MOA shall cause close monitoring and inspection of project ‘implementation and verification of financial records and reports of the NGO/PO, and shall ensure compliance ‘with the provisions of the MOA and of this Circular. ww 20. In sum, the implementing agencies of the Executive branch have the responsibility to: ensure that the NGOs that they deal with are legitimate; withhold release of funds to the NGO unless reporting/liquidation requirements of the previous release of funds shall have been complied with; and closely monitor and inspect project implementation and verification of financial records and reports of the NGO.21, The pertinent laws and regulations have provided numerous safeguards to ensure that public funds are properly utilized for their intended purposes and that projects are properly implemented. ‘The laws expressly mandate that the responsibility of ensuring that the safeguards are strictly followed rests with the implementing agencies and other concerned executive departments oF agencies, The laws do not impose such duty or responsibility on the legislators. 22, However, in the implementation of the projects funded by the PDAF, during the period covered by the charges against me, the implementing agencies concerned blatantly failed to comply with their obligations im dealing with the NGOs. The COA highlighted how the implementing agencies were remiss in their aforementioned obligations, thus: Xx x The IAs, being govermment agencies, cannot relinquish this responsibility and claim minimal "participation and responsibilities as mere conduits of funds or documents, for that matter. They cannot also plead io be unaware of the menu prescribed in the GAA. The GAA is the most vital legislation oon the national budget and prescsibes when and how the people's money should be spent. It behooves the IAs to now ‘and comply with the GAA. It is also incumbent upon the IAs to assess their mandate and technical and administrative capability to implement, manage, and monitor projects for implementation under PDAF before accepting any fund transfers, More than simply receiving any and sll documents submitted by NGOs, a large part of the [A's responsibility i to look into the feasibility of the project proposals and the qualifications of the NGOs proposed to be involved in the projects. This is proper exercise of due diligence fand care to ensure that legal and regulatory requirements for the release and utilization of funds are duly complied with, and that the people's money is not wasted or misused x xx3* f 23, In particular, the COA noted that implementing agencies Y Jailed to ascertain the legitimacy and capability of the NGOs to ‘implement the project during the selection process, to wit: The NLOC as the implementing agency, and primarily responsible in the proper handling and management of funds ‘aninol relegate this duty to the legislator, or NGO, or anybody for COA Specnt Audit Report No, 201208, pp. 21 to 22 [heroater refered fo as “COA. ‘Audit Report"a hat matter. Tt also cannot limit or escape responsibilities by entering into MOA? 24. Likewise, the COA found that the implementing agencies ‘mismanaged the funds released to them, thus: ‘As discussed above, the heads of the agency is responsible for ensuring that government resowsces are properly and efficiently managed and expended. The responsibility applies to ail funds received by the agency including the PDAF. The agency ‘atin! just heep on releasing government funds entrusted to it (0 NGOs or anybody for that matter without assuming responsibility and accountability °° 25. The COA observed that the implementing agencies kept on seleasing funds without the proper accounting and liquidation, thus: Under COA Circular No. 2007-001, the validity of documents submitted by the NGO shall be verified by the internal auditor or equivalent official of the implementing agency to be used as basis in recording the fund utilization in the 1A’s books of accounts Apparently, however, the NGOs’ documents were accepted find recorded an the books of accounts without validation ‘which again manifest non-compliance with the above cited COA Circular x x22? 26. The implementing agencies, to evade their obligation, cite the MOAs that were supposedly executed which included the office of the legislators as party, in which MOAs it was provided that the legislator shared the obligation of monitoring and supervising the projects undertaken by the NGOs, However, the extensive, large-scale forgery employed by the whistleblowers put to doubt the authenticity of these MOAs. 27, Furthermore, even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that there were indeed MOAs signed by my staff, note that the MOA is a contract for project implementation which the laws and regulations require to be executed only between the implementing agency and the NGO. Since my legislative office has no legal role or function relative to project implementation, the inclusion of my Senate office as party to such MOA is legally * eatp om id, atp. 284 ld. aep. 296immaterial and irrelevant, as it is not required for the release of the funds. The implementing agency cannot validly transfer its statutory obligations to my Senate office by the simple expedient of requiring my office to sign a MOA. Even the COA pointed out that the implementing agencies cannot transfer their obligation to my office, thru the MOA, especially because these obligations are expressly imposed by law on such agencies.® 28. Likewise, the obligation to determine whether supporting documents submitted by the NGOs are legitimate falls upon the implementing agencies. The whistleblowers admittedly forged documents to make it appear that such documents were signed by my staff. As the responsibility for determining the authenticity and sufficiency of the supporting documents falls on the implementing agency, the anomalous release of funds, despite the forged signatures on all of the documents, is the lixbility of the implementing agency and the whistleblowers who falsified the documents. MY ONLY INVOLVEMENT IN THE UTILIZATION OF THE PDAF IS THE ENDORSEMENT OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS, WHICH ACT IS PERFECTLY LAWFUL. 29, Evidently, my only role as member of Congress in the utilization of the PDAF is to endorse to the Executive branch a specific project for the benefit of a LGU. It is the exclusive fiction of DBM to determine if such endorsed specific project may qualify under the PDAF allocations, and after it issues the SARO, it is the exclusive function of the implementing agency, when appropriate, to select a qualified and suitable NGO as contractor for the project and to supervise and monitor its implementation, as well as to effect the agreed project payments. 30. My acts of endorsing a specific LGU project for PDAF funding were strictly in accordance with the law (the GAA) and the corresponding implementing guidelines, rules, and regulations then in force and effect. Although the Supreme Court recently, in Belgica, et al. vs. Hon. Sen. Paquito N. Ochoa (PDAF case), declared the PDAF provisions of the GAAs See par above © GRINo. 208568 (November 19,203)unconstitutional, it nonetheless expressly considered all such past utilization as valid and enforceable. This To explain, the operative fact doctrine exhorts the recognition that unit the judiciary, in an appropriate case, decietes the invalidity of a certain legislative or executive act, such act is Presumed constitutional and ths, entitled to cbedion and Tespect and should be properly enfored and complied with. “As explained in the recent case of Camtnissioner of Internal Revente San Roque Power Corporation the doctrine merely *reflets) awareness that precisely because the judiciary “is. the governmental organ which has the final say On whether ox not 2 legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of tame may, have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead foa declaration of nullity, It would be to deprive the law of its quality of faimes and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had tcanspired prior to. such adjudication” “In the language of an American Supreme Court decision: ‘The actual existence ofa statute, prior o such a {determination of unconsttutionalty], js an operative fet anc ay have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. 31. _ The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court decision in the PDAF case ~ which “DIRECTS all prosecutorial organs of the government to, within the bounds of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlaoful disbursement/utilization of all funds under the Pork Barrel System” - must clearly refer then tothe criminal acts. in connection with the “disbursement/utilization” of the PDAF which is mainly the primary Junction and responsibility of the Executive branch. 32. In that light, my endorsement of specific LGU projects for PDAF funding cannot by itself be irregular, much less criminal. Neither are my addressing such endorsements to certain implementing agencies of the Executive branch irregular, much less criminal, because the GAA indicates the general programs, for which the PDAF may be utilized, and the specific government agency authorized to implement the program (under which the endorsed specific project may fall). © Canmsionrof eral Revenue Sat Rogue Power Corporation, GR. No. 187485 October 8, 202) citing Serrano de Aghayan . Phlppine National Bank, 148 Pail 3, 447-48 sry, © bit tiPy 33. Upon my endorsement of an LGU project to an implementing agency of the Executive branch, I expected the implementing agency to comply with pertinent laws and regulations mentioned earlier to ensure accountability in the performance of the project. 34, Aside from my endorsement of an LGU project to an implementing agency, the only other action that I did in connection with such projects is to authorize my staff to sign pertinent documents as may be required relative to any specific project endorsements ~ in order that the endorsed projects may be “properly” and “timely” acted upon by the agencies concerned, but always “subject to the pertinent government accounting and auditing rules and regulations.” Such an authorization is surely in accordance with law and normal practice. 1 DID NOT “PERSUADE" OR “INFLUENCE”, MUCH LESS “INDUCE” OR “CONSENT TO”, THE VIOLATIONS BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES OF THEIR STATUTORILY MANDATED DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS IN THE UTILIZATION/ DISBURSEMENT OF PDAR. 35. In the face of, and despite, the searing indictment by the COA Special Audit Report of the wanton and egregious violations committed by the implementing agencies relative to their principal duties and functions in the utilization, disbursement and liquidation of the PDAF alllocations, the complainants [the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), an agency of the Executive branch, and Atty. Levito Baligod, counsel of the “whistleblowers”, as private complainant] in their Complaint before the Ombudsman docketed as OMB-C-C-13- 0318 (the “NBI Compiaint”) instead passed the principal blame on members of the Legislative branch, including me, by positing the following farcical theory of prosecution. Senator ENRILE, int cahoots with NAPOLES, persuaded and influenced the Heads of Implementing Agencies to grant the project fo his endorsed’ NGOs and/or to enter into a contract through a Memorandum of Agreement with the endorsed NGOs despite absence of competitive bidding prescribed in the selection of the NGO in violation of Section 21.2.24 of the IRR of RA 9184, or in spite of the absence of any appropriation law36. oF ordinance which could have allowed the alternative mode of procurement, a negotiated procurement with the NGO, under GPPB Resolution No. 12-2007. It is noted that negotiated rocuzement is one where the procuring entity negotiates a contract with a technically, legally, and financially capable supplier, contractor or consultant, which qualifications the endorsed NGOs clearly do nat meet, Senator ENRILE, who has control in the selection of his priority projects and programs thus exceeded his authority in designating or endorsing the NGOs when the same should be selected through competitive bidding, a mandated by government procurement laws, ‘On the part of the Heads of the Implementing Agencies, Mr, JAVELLANA, Mrs. AMATA and MR. ORTIZ. received their ‘commission on every project, and as a result allowed themselves to be persuaded and injluenced by Senator ENRILE and/or NAPOLES to commit such violations, or failed to exercise deliberately their duty to account for the amounts received by them. They merely relied on the endorsement, and in disregard of the required competitive bidding and/or requirement of a law or ordinance to allow a negotiated procurement, they affixed their signatures in the Memorandum of Agreement and other documents relevant to the transactions. These officials who, in their official capacity, should have facilitated the implementation of the projects in accordance with the GAA. which provides for the allocation of the funds, agreed to award the project to the endorsed NGO of Senator ENRILE in violation of government procurement laws, In a similar vein, the subsequent, separate complaint of the Field Investigation Office (FIO), Office of the Ombudsman docketed as OMB-C-C-13-03%6 (the “FIO Complaint”) charges me with the offense of “plunder” and “graft and corrupt practices” purportedly committed as follows: xxx Senator Enzile's consistent, but umwarranted selection of the Napoles-controlled NGOs, and his eventual receipt of kickbacks through Ruby Tuason by itself, shows an “implied conspiracy” Indeed, Napoles could not have secured Enzile’s PDAF through the NGOs were it not for Eneile's consent end influence as a high-ranking public officer. The misappropriation of the whole Php345,000,000.00 PDAF allocation could not have otherwise had a get-go without Senator Enile's bias in favor of Napoles NGOs, That is his principal and indispensable role in the whole scheme.2% 37. Simply stated, complainants charge me, as a Senator and member of the Legislative branch, of having committed the crime of plunder by “persuading and influencing” the heads of implementing agencies, who belong to the Executive branch, to violate the pertinent laws and regulations on the disbursement, utilization and liquidation of public funds (which laws and regulations it is their primary responsibility to enforce and comply with), in order to have them award the projects to NGOs purportedly endorsed by me (supposedly by virtue of my control of the selection of projects as a member of the Legislative branch) in consideration for commissions and kickbacks allegedly received by such heads of implementing agencies for each project; and that Icommitted such alleged acts purportedly “in cahoots” with Janet Napoles. 38. In other words, both the NBI Complaint and the FIO Complaint adopt the position that I “induced” with criminal culpability said agencies to violate their primary duties mandated by law and regulations in order to award contracts for project implementation to the Napoles NGOs and fraudulently disburse payments from PDAF to such NGOs, despite deficient or non- accomplishment of the awarded projects. Evidently, I am being held criminally liable under Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code which declares to be principals in a crime those “who directly force or induce others to commit it.” The decisions of our Supreme Court on this matter are most instructive: One is induced directly to commit a crime either by command, oF for a consideration, or by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of the czime and which was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpase. xxx it is necessary that such advice or such words have a great dominance and great influence over the person who acts its necessary that they be as divect, as efficacious, a5 powerfl as physical or moral coercion or as violence iteelt In a decision of the 6 of July, 1881, the court held that “one who tokes advantage of his position’ as an inspector for the ‘maintenance of public peace and proposes to a private citizen the perpetzation of a robbery, with the threat that unless he did commit the robbery he would be arvested as an escaped39. prisoner, at the same time offring to withdraw the officers from the vicinity of the place to be robbed, and who after the robbery received a part of the booty, was guilty of the crime as principal, although he did not take personal pazt therein, Ima decison of the 31* of May, 1898, twas led down “that the command of a muster to his servant, by reason of the special relations which exist between them, contains the elements of inducement which makes the master who orders such servant ta cut wood belonging toa third person inorder that he might benefit thereby, the principal of the crime committed by such servant’, the court saying that "in view of the fact that the command ofthe master tothe servant, made within the sphere and under the ordinary conditions of domestic life, when they relate 40 acts simple and apparently legitimate, contains the necessary elements, direcly and sufficiently efficacious, of inducement according to the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 13 of the Penal Code, it appearing thatthe master, taking advantage of the ascendeney and authority which he naturally rust exercise over his servant or inferior, ordered him to eut and carry away wood from land which he knew did not belong to him, without disclosing to the servant that circumstance, which concealment gzve rise to the inflence which the master exercised over the servant in that particular act THIS UNWARRANTED AND. UNFOUNDED “THEORY” IS A FARCE, BEING TOTALLY BEREFT OF ANY BASIS IN LAW AND IN FACT. Firstly, how could I, a member of the Legislative branch, “persuade and influence” implementing agencies belonging to the Executive branch who are concededly under the control of the President? Moreover, there is nothing at all in the “pieces of evidence” offered by complainants to even remotely suggest that I personeily know or met with officials involved in these agencies, mnuch less have the moral coercion to effectively “persuade/influence” them to violate the laws and regulations they were bound to comply with and enforce. 40. Also, there was nothing in the laws at that time (2004-2010) which vested legislators with absolute control over the selection of projects under the PDAF provisions as would compel the implementing agencies to ministerially approve my specific © US, Ponglina Indoen, GR No, L-6187 January 21919)28 project endorsements, much less the Napoles NGOs, in the violation of the mandated duties and functions of the implementing agencies under the pertinent laws and regulations. ‘As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the PDAF Case: ‘Textually, the PDAF Articles from 2002 to 2010 were silent with respect to the specific amounts allocated for the individual legislators, aswell as their participation in the proposal and identification of PDAF projects to be funded. xxx 41, ‘That the implementing agencies were “persuaded/influenced” by the legislators concerned to sweep aside their statutory and regulatory functions and duties because of the alleged legisiators’ “control” in the selection of projects is a tenuous and flimsy excuse, as found by the COA in its Special Audit Repo! x x x The IAs (“ImplementingAgencies”), being government agencies, cannot relinquish this responsibility and claim minimal participation and responsibilities as mere conduits of funds or documents, for that matter. They cannot also plead to be ‘unaware of the menu prescribed in the GAA x xx x x x More than simply receiving any and all documents submitted by NGOs, a large part of the IA’s responsitility is to look into the feasibility of the project proposals and the qualifications of the NGOs proposed to be involved in the proects. This is proper exercise of due diligence and care to ensure that legal and regulatory requizements for the release and utilization of funds are duly complied with, and that the people's money is not wasted or misused xx x 42, In the light of the above findings of the COA which pinpointed the wanton violation of the laws and regulations on the part of the implementing agencies of the Executive branch concerning the utilization and disbursement of the PDAF for the years 2007-2009 (including those attributed to me, in the FIO Complaint), Lam befuddled, if not distressed, on how it could be charged that my legal acts, as a member of the Legislative branch, of endorsing specific LGU projects to the implementing agencies of the Executive branch, subject to the pertinent laws, rules and regulations, could make me a “principal by inducement” in the alleged crime of plunder or graft and corrupt practices, which 1 bulgias ea os Hon. Sen Puta N. Ochoa, GR. No. 208566; SIS President S. Alcantara vs. ow. Frakes Drilon. eal, GR. No, 208885; Peto M. Nepooniceno ws. Pres. Benigno S. ‘Agnite I, GR. No. 209251 (November 19,2013) © SeeCOA Audit Report supra nate 36 at pp. 211022resulted from such violations of the laws and regulations which the implementing agencies were primarily tasked to comply with, 43. Worse, the consistent violations made by the implementing agencies which gave unwarranted benefit to the Napoles group or, inversely, inflicted prejudice or injury to the public, are now reversely but ttvistedly attributed by the complainants as owing to, or effectively caused by, my lawful acts of endorsing specific LGU projects, when actually, my endorsements only gave occasion ot opportunity for the implementing agencies to fratidulently award the implementating contracts to the Napoles NGOs without regard to the requirements of law and regulations. I did not endorse any NGO as a conduit for the implementation of the PDAF projects. 44, The allegation that I personally endorsed Napoles NGOs, as a contractor of the implementing agency concerned, for the implementation of a specific project is totally unsupported by any “piece of evidence” adduced in the complaint, There is nothing at all in the attachments to complainants’ sworn affidavits which would show that I made such an endorsement. 45, What I remember, as appears in the Senate records, is that I endorsed specific LGU projects to the proper implementing agencies indicated in the GAA for PDAF funding (not endorsement of any NGO), leaving it to the implementing agency concerned to handle the implementation of the specific project according to the rules and regulations. It is in such project endorsement letters that L usually indicated either my Chief of Staff or Deputy Chief of Staff to coordinate with the implementing agency concerned to ensure the project’s “proper and timely” implementation, and “subject to the pertinent rules and regulations” relative to the implementation of the project. 46, Being a Senator during the period of 2004-2010, I received quite a number of requests for funding assistance from my LGU constituents across the length and breadth of the country, for projects to be implemented in their respective localities, The requests that I deemed meritorious, and which would qualify under the programs available for PDAF funding under the GAAS then in effect, were endorsed to the implementing agencies designated by law for their proper action. Since my principal30 function as a Senator relates principally to legislation and the incidents thereof, such as drafting bills, discussing and acting on the bills, attending the Senate sessions, as well as Senate Committee hearings, and administrative Senate housekeeping work, particularly when I became Senate President, the work relative to the following up and coordination with government agencies concerned on the LGU requests for PDAP assistance was mainly left to members of my Senate staff. 47. It cannot be overemphasized that I never recommended any Napoles NGO for purposes of diverting my office's PDAF for my personal benefit or for purposes other than what the law provided for. Even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that 1 or any of my staff recommended a particular NGO, such recommendation or nomination is not illegal per se. Being a mere recommendation, the implementing agency has the power and the obligation under the law to reject any NGO that does not meet the qualifications required by law.## 48. Given the fact that it was the implementing agencies that were solely and principally tasked under the laws and regulations to select a qualified NGO, when appropriate, to act as a conduit in the implemerttation of specific projects for the designated LGU beneficiaries, the complainants avoidedly allege that in the MOA and supporting papers submitted for the release of the corresponding funds, it was supposedly shown that my Senate office was included as a participant in the implementation of the project, such as the endorsement or selection of the NGO and the approval of the project accomplishment. However, knowing that under the law, rules and regulations, it is the implementing agencies who are solely tasked and authorized to select the contractors (including NGOs when appropriate) for the accomplishment of the projects I endorsed, and to enter into a MOA with them, it was definitely not within my contemplation that my Senate staff would be involved in such matters, as the authorization I extended to my staff regarding my project endorsements to implementing agencies were “subject to the pertinent accounting and auditing rules and regulations.” 49. The attempt of the complainants and the implementing agencies to pass such responsibilities to me, through the Resolution No. 12-2007 pre note 2, a Sections #07.0 supposed execution of the MOAs, was likewise rebuffed squarely by the COA Special Report, thus: The NLDC as the implementing agency, and primarily responsible in the proper handling and management of funds cannot relegate this duty to the legislator, or NGO, or anybody for that matter, It also cannot limit of escape responsibilities by entering into MOA® 50. In apparent support of their allegations that my endorsement letters for specific. ~~ LGU _ projects, “nersuaded/influencea” the implementing agencies to contract with the Napoles NGOs and to supposedly surrender to my office the supervision over such NGOs in the implementation of the projects, the Complaint alleges that “COA requested for confirmation on the authenticity of Senator ENRILE's signature or that of his duly authorized representative appearing on various documents, e.g. Letter to the Head of the Implementing Agency, ‘MOA, Project Proposal, Inspection and Acceptance Agreement, Project Profile, Acknowledgment Receipt, Project Activities, Accomplishment Report, and Report of Disbursement.” And “[iJn response to the request for confirmation, Senator JUAN PONCE ENRILE confirmed the authenticity of his signature and that of his authorized representative in all documents submitted by the NGOs, viz MAMFI, POPDFI, CARED, SDPFFI, AEPFFI, APMFI.” 51. However, of the above-cited documents, only several letters of specific project endorsements (not endorsements of NGOs) were personally signed by me, as I explained above. All the other various documents were purportedly signed by my Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, What the complaint failed or ignored to point out is that in a second letter to the COA, my Deputy Chief of Staff debunked most of the signatures on such documents as “forged”. A. copy of said letter and its annexes is attached hereto as Annex "1". 52. To reiterate, I never signed any endorsement letter for the benefit of the Napoles NGOs. The endorsement letters supposedly signed by my staff and submitted by the complainants to this Honorable Office are fabricated or forged. The whistleblowers, Merlina Sunas and Benhur Luy, admitted they were the ones who fabricated the endorsement letters. ‘Their procedure was as follows: COR And port pra note 3653. 54. 2, 2, 27, 28, Ti May nabanggit ka na endorsement leter mula sa mga politicians, ano ang nilalaman nto? Si Ho ay nakaaddress 22 Head ng Agency. Nokasaad fang amount ng allocated na pondo, ang SARO Number, date fang napili nalang non-government organizations at mga Dayan ma makikinabarg, Ts Kayo vin ba ang gumagawn ng mga endorsement letier ig mga politicians? 5: ” Opo. Si BENHUR K. LUY ang gumagoroa ng draft rng endorsement letter Te Masari mo bong sabihn kung sims ang. gn senador at congressman a ‘gong tnutuloy kung. saan iniemalo pinay fer ag draftng endorsement letter? 5: po. en opsina nina Senior INGCOY ESTRADA, JUAN PONCE ENRILE at RAMON “BONG” REVILLA JR. Sr niga congress ay nd ko moran. T: Kung si BENHUR LUY ang sinasabi mong naghahanda’ 4g draft ng endorsement letter, paano m0 nialaman and impormasyon nasa opisina nina Senator JINGGOY ESTRADA, Senator JUAN PONCE ENRILE at ‘Senator RAMON REVILLA JR. ipinadala ang draft nito? S: Alam ko po yor dahil bago ifex or e-mail ey pinapa check 0 pinapabasa muna sa akin ni BENHUR LUY ang raf 32 It is very clear from the foregoing that the whistleblowers fabricated such endorsement letters to make it appear that I endorsed the NGOs controlled by Napoles. In fact, in’ the following excerpt from her affidavit, Merlina Sunas confirmed that she failed to personally obtain endorsement letters that were signed by my staff 23, Ts Nagkaroon ka ba ng pagkakataon ra Iavnin and ppirmado nang endorsement letter nuula sa opisina ng mga Senador at congressman? S: Hindi post The whistleblowers likewise forged supporting documents in order to liquidate and justify the funds they received from the implementing agencies. In his Sirumpaang Salaysay, Benbur Luy 5 Sinumpung Salasey ni Merlin Sutas dated Septesaber 12, 203, p. 7 [hereinafter efered 036 “Sinnnpaing Salaysny ni Melina Safa) fiat. 8discussed how he and the other whistleblowers fabricated supporting documents, as follows: 116. T: May iba pa ba kayong gagatein maliban sa report of Aishursemert patungkol sa ligutdation? S:— Mayroon pa po. Pini-prepare din yung list of beneficiaries, certificate of inspection and acceptance coming from the office ng proponent or legislators, certificate of Project completion, delivery receipts, sales invoice, officiat receipts from the supplier, independent auditor's report, scorplishent report, at pictures ng implementation kung rmayroong implementation. Kung wala pong implementation, ‘wala po knming attach na pictures. At sa mga nasabing mga Alokumento na kailangan ang pirma ng legislators, may niga panahon po na Kami ma_ang puripinna sa mga pangalan ng mga Chief of Staff ng mga legislators o se niga prngalan mg itlang Congressman sa utes ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES."" 55. Thus, Benhur Luy and the other whistleblowers merely manufactured documents in order to put a semblance of regularity for the release of funds to Napoles' NGOs. Clearly, they made up documents to make it appear that projects were accomplished when there was in fact no delivery of the goods or services needed for the project 56. More than that, the whistleblowers forged the signatures of my staff to make it appear that the documents they fabricated were official documents which were coursed through my office. 56.1 For instance, in his Sinumpaong Salaysay, Benhur Luy admitted having forged the signatures of the chiefs of staff of the legislators: 17, Ts Nabanggit mo ma may mga panchon na kayo «ang pumipirma sa pangalan ng miga Chief of Singing ga legislators o a pangalan nig tlang Congressman, ano ang ibig mong sabikin dito at sint-sino ang mge sama mong pupipirma? Si Kapag kami ay naglictiguidate at may mga okumento na kailangan ang pirma ng Chief of Staff rng mga legislators 0 Congressman at kami ra po ong umipirma para se kanila sa wtos po ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Ang mga ksama ko po na © Sinmpoang Slayny oi Benbur Cuy dated September 12,2023, pp. 28-29 fheeinater referred tas “Simumpaarg Sloan Bernat Lay]pumipirma sa mga nasabing dokumento ay sila EVELYN DE LEON, AT MERLINA SUNAS® 56.2. In her Sworn Statement, Merlina Suias categorically admitted having forged the signatures in the documents in connection with the implementation of one project: 14, QUESTION: Based on POPDHI Narrative Accomplishment Repost, the livelihood projects ‘amounting to Php25,000,000.00. which was equally alloted to the five municipalities rentioned earlier forthe supply and digtidution Of agricultural production livelihood kits Consisting ofthe following items: vegetable coeds, hand! too gloves, mask, vests, cap, gesien fools and knapsack sprayer. I'am showing you the FORDE Narrative Accomplishment "Repost bearing what appears to be your signature, Are you familiar with this document? Ts the signature appeacing above the printed name MERLINA P. SUNAS your signarure? ANSWER: Yes, sir. This is my signature, 1 personally prepared this —‘Narrative Accomplishment Report, I informed Madam Jenny that a certain person’s signature, in this case, Mr. Evangelista, is required, As far as T can remember, the signature of Mr. Evangelista ts signed in JLN Corporation by one of the employees of JLN Corporation 16. QUESTION: xxx ‘These documents show that POPDFI delivered to these five municipalities their respective agricultural production livelihood kits from the Office of Senator Envile and the same were accepted by them. Further, the Certificates of Accepiance show a signature above the printed name MERLINA P. SUNAS certifying the acceptance of the five municipalities of said livelihood kits. Are you familiar with all these documents ~ Delivery Reports, Certificates of Acceptance and Acknowledgment Receipts, which are all undated? Are the signatures appearing in the Certificates of Acceptance above the printed name MERLINA P. SUNAS your signatures? 3 atpp. 28.28,ANSWER: Benhur K. Luy, Evelyn de Leon, John Lim and I prepared all the recards for this particular “transaction —pagkatapos na magkasundo sina Madam Jenny at yung awmaker. Madam Jenny will inform us pag ‘okay na then we prepare the documents Yes, sir. The signatures appearing in the Certificates of Accoptance are all mine. The liquidation reports were all personally prepared and signed by me. However, the signatures appearing in all these documents were al forged ‘upon the instruction of Madam Jenny. 17, QUESTION: Among the officers and members of POPDFI, who prepared and isgned the documents relative to the liquidation of this particular project/transaction? What was the specific role of each officer or member in the preparation, conceptualization and jimplementation of the livelihood project? ANSWER: Apat lang kami, Ako, si Evelyn de Leon, Benhur K Luy, at John Lim. Kasi kami lang ang assigned sa mga special projects ‘Tulong tulong kami sa lahat ng paggawa ng dokumento. May division of labor kami Halimbawa, pwedeng ako ang gumewa ng MOA, yung iba naman sa poggcwa ng mge Delivery Reports 0 Certifieates of Acceptance at iba pang. documents 57, To further put semblance of regularity to the documents that would support the disbursement of PDAF funds, the whistleblowers also forged signatures of notaries public in various dishursement reports: 107, Ts Nabanggit mo na ang ginagown ninyong report of disbursement ay notarized, saan ninyo ito dinadala pare ipa notarize? Si Doon die sa opisina ng JLN Corporation po. 108. T: Killa mo ba kung sino ang nagno-natarize ng report of disbursement na ginagewa ninyo? % Sworn Statement of Merlina Pablo Sufas dated November 6, 2013, pp. 8-1 [hereinafter referred tas "Swam Statement of Merling Sufi),26 S: Kaming mga empleyado ng opisina so JLN Corporntion. Bale ipinipirma na naming iyon niga attorney, ‘May ciry seal at stamp siya sa amin at notarial logbook 58. Most telling of all is the admission of the whistleblowers that all the supporting documents for projects supposedly undertaken by CARED Foundation were forged, in that CARED Foundation’s supposed President, Simonette R. Briones, did not even know that she was the “President” of that Napoles NGO and was not at all aware of the transactions entered into by CARED. Indeed, all her signatures on those papers were admittedly forged by the “whistleblowers”: MQ xxx ‘A: _ Yes, I am the President of CARED Foundation Ine. from 2009 up to the present but I did not sign any documents as shown in the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws and Treasurer's Affidavit of CARED submitted in the SEC. T denied the authenticity of the signature in the Articles of Incorporation of CARED. 2. Q How did you become President of CARED Foundation Inc? A: "Twas assigned as the President of CARED Foundlation inc. through Marina Sula who is my Aunt (ita) (sister oF ray mother), My aunt informed me that | will be the President of a certain foundation, But I did not know anything about CARED. Fouredation Inc specifically its nature and functions. Accordingly, I also did not krow all projects that were caried out by the said foundation. 38 Q Records show that the Office of Senator Juan Ponce Ensile has allocated Php4Omillion pesos released to the National Livelihood Development Corporation (NLDC) for the implementation of livelihood projects in various municipalities. The Office of Senator Enrile had designated the Countrywide Agri & Rural Economic Development (CARED) Foundation, Inc, a duly registered non-government organization as the conduit in the implementation of the said project. Subsequently, the NLDC and CARED Foundation Ine,, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement 9MOA) on 2 December 2009 for the implementation of the said livelihood projects in various municipalities. 5 Sinumpang Salayoy i Bee Lay, sup note 52, at p27.Iam showing you the said MOA dated 2 December 2009, Are you familiar with this document? Is the signature appearing above the printed name SIMONETTE R. BRIONES your signature? A: No. Ido not know the said MOA and I denied the authenticity of my signature appearing on the said document, Weare showing to you the following documents covered by SARO No. 09:07112 bearing “SIMONETTE R. BRIONES" as the President of CARED Foundation Ine, ‘+ Undated Project Proposal for the Implementation of Livelihood Projects in various Municipalities which, includes the dressmaking activity, mani-ped activity, wellness massage and other livelihood projects + Undated Accomplishment Report + Purchase Order (PO) No. CFI-0-036 dated 10 October 2009 for the Sales Invoice No. 2650 dated 22 December 2009 ‘+ Report of Disbursement dated 28 December 2008 + Undated Accomplishment Report for the 3" Tranche of the amount transferred amounting to Php4,000,000.00 + Undated Inspection and Acceptance Report + Purchase Order No. CF1-036B dated 10 October 2009 {or the 4,000 units of training supplies and materials, + TNU Sales Invoice No. 2554 dated 13 January 2010 + INU Delivery Receipt No. 2649 dated 22 December 2009 + Report of Disbursement dated 20 January 2010 + Undated Accomplishment Report for the 4% and Final Tranche transferred amounting to Pp,000,000.00 PO No, CFI-0368 dated 11 January 2010 “TNU DR No. 2672 dated 18 January 2010 ‘TNUSI No. 2691 dated 18 January 2010 Contract of Service between CARED Foundation Ine and DITCHON Trading dated 10 November 2009 + Letter addressed to Nitz Cabilao, DITCHON Trading dated 4 November 2009 + Certificate of Services Rendeze * Undated DITCHON Trading Accomplishment Reopzt purportedly noted by Simonette R. Briones + Abstract of Buids purportedly approved by ‘Simonette Briones + Report of Disbursement dated 9 March 2010 purportedly certified correct by Simonette R, Briones ”40, + Inspection and Acceptance Report dated 20 January 2o10 Ave you familiar with these documents? [s the signature appearing on the said documents, yours? A: No. I do not know the aforementioned documents, I also denied having signed them and the signature appearing on the said documents are not my signatures, Q We are showing to you the following documents for the purchase of 1,159 kits of Small Scale Agri Package for various Municipalities covered by SARO ‘No, 09-0996 bearing “SIMONETTE R. BRIONES" as the Presicent of CARED Foundation Ine. + Inspection and Acceptance Report dated 6 October 2009) + INU Detivery Receipt No. 2636 dated 5 October 2009 for the 1,159 sets of Small Seale Agri Package + MOA dated 16 September 2009 + Undated Project Proposal. for the Nationwide Implementation of Livelitood Project + Undated Accomplishment Report for the implementation of livelihood projets in Balaoaa, La Union, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, Bose, Marinduque, and Pantukan, Compostela Valley + Report on Disbursement dated 6 October 2009 + Report of Disbursement dated 19 October 2008 + Certificate of Acceptance for the 289 sets of small scale agri package for Sta. Maria, Pangasinan purportedly certified by Simonette R. Briones + Cenificate of Acceptance for the 289 sets of small scale agri package fr Balaoan, La Union purportedly certified by Simonette R. Briones + Certificate of Acceptance for the 291 sets of small scale agi package for Boas, Marinduque purportedly certified by Simonent R. Briones + Certificate of Acceptance for the 290 sets of small scale agri package for Pantukan, Compostela Valley purportedly certified by SimonetteR. Briones ‘Are you familiar with these documents? Is the signature appearing on the said documents, yours? A: No. 1 do not know the aforementioned documents. 1 also denied having signed them and the signature appearing on the said documents are not my signatures, 383» Hindi ko po alam ang mga transactions na ito, Maliban ‘sa mga blankong withdrawal slips wala na akong ibang dokumentong pinirmahan.® 59, Similarly, but even more outrageous, is the case of Nemesio Cudal Pablo, jr, the alleged “President” of Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (AEPEFI), who is actually an OFW staying in Australia at the time the NGO was undertaking its supposed transactions with the implementing agencies concerned It was on July 16, 2013 when my sister-in-law posted to me on. Facebook an Inquirer article that shocked me; it's about the Pork Barrel Scam showing my name as one af the president of fake NGOs, 1 was in the Australian desert that time, which is ‘hundreds of kilometers away from home, working in a closed. ining site—an area without mobile phone signal. I could not ‘make a call to get clearer information about the scam news Our only communication was through a satellite phone hhandset for emergency purposes and a slow temporary Internet access connected to a satellite antenna. I got back home after being avay for three weeks on August 3,2013, and started searching past Internet news. On other news, my cousin ‘Merlin Sustas was employee of Napoles. This clears how my name got implicated to the scam. She is behind of all of this, She did not call me to explain, She and her family know my mobile number that never changed since 2008, I patiently waited for her call, and for her to clear my name in almost 10 weeks. News on September 16 that some of the accused people managed to slip out of the country made me wormed. Allegedly, I departed on May 22, 2008, but it was the time 1 fetched my family. On September 20, the big news came; the ccase was filed before the Ombudsman including my name This news made me really worried, I tried to call TV Patrol immediately, but I did not get any answer” 60, It was again admitted by the whistleblowers that in all of such transactions of AEPFFL, the signatures of that purported “President,” including the MOAs and accomplishment reports, were admittedly forged again by the “whistleblowers” and their group. 61, The foregoing admissions only illustrate the widespread falsification and forgery employed by the whistleblowers and their group to make it appear that I endorsed the Napoles NGOs 3 Siwom Statement of Simonet RTrones dated November 6,203, pp. 3,57. © Alfdavit/Sworn Statement/Stastory Declaration of Nemesio Catal Pablo, Je. deted (October 18,2013.as alleged fund conduits of my PDAF, and that the projects were accomplished by the NGOs, when in fact, I never endorsed such NGOs and the NGOs never implemented the projects. Thus, these spurious documents cannot be proof that I endorsed any Napoles. NGO or participated in any way in the project implementation. 62. Since such project accomplishment reports, disbursement and liquidation reports, were forged to make it appear that these were noted or signed by my staff, neither can such fabricated documents stand as proof that I acquired ill-gotten wealth in the form of kickbacks or rebates, 63. It is a basic rule of evidence that before a document or Paper may be received as proof of their contents, their authenticity and due execution must be proven; otherwise, the document or paper is inadmissible® It was Napoles and her group who “persuaded and influenced" the implementing agencies to violate their duties and functions. 64. In sharp contrast to the paucity of evidence to support the claim that 1 was mainly responsible for “persuading/influencing” the implementing agencies to violate their duties and functions which led to the fraud on the public treasury, substantial evidence is extant in complainants’ own “pieces of evidence” that it was mainly the Napoles group who “persuaded and influenced” the implementing agencies. 65. Since the utilization/ disbursement of funds is the exclusive province of the Executive branch through the implementing agencies, it was their violation of the laws and the rules and regulations which was the proximate cause of the fraud committed on the public treasury. And in the light of the fact that the Napoles NGO's were utilized as the vehicles for the commission of the fraud, then, in law and in fact, the conspiracy twas actually between the implementing agencies of the Executive branch and the Napoles group. 5 Cequen v.Balante, GR. No. 137944 (Apri 6, 2000),a 66. From the “pieces of evidence” presented by the complainants, it is clear that the “whistleblowers” (who were members of the Napoles group) were pointing to Napoles as the one who spun her web of connections in the Executive branch, principally the DBM (which controls the release of funds from the public treasury) and the implementing agencies (which disburse the payments for the projects to the NGOs). 66. In her Sinumpaang Salaysay, Merlina Sufas made the following admissions: 21. Ts Alam mo be kung popaano ang ginagawa ni Madame JENNY para’ makniada ng. ponds. sa sgobyerno? 5: Opo, Kaugnay po mune sa Priority Development Assistence Fund (PDAF) ng_ileng ramibcbatas ay gonito po iyon,kakausopis ni Madame JENNY ang politician para paglagakan ng pondo ang mga government agencies na Kontrolado niya GANET LIM NAPOLES) na nasa tistahan ng DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET and MANAGEMENT (DBM) Meru, Ang mga agencies na piniti mi Madame JENNY ay tscsama ng politicion so kanyang listing na ésa-submit sa DBM para magawan ng Special Allotment Release Onder (SARO), —Kapeg.mayroon ng SARO ay bibigyan ng opisina ng politician si Madame JENNY nig endorsement letter kung saan nokalagay ang NGO nna paglalagokan ng pordo x x35 66.2. Similarly, Benhur Luy testified on the following: 83. T: Alam mo ba kung popaano naman ito nagagewang mapabilis ni JANET LIM NAPOLES? Se Qpo, may mga contact persons na siya kasi sa DBM. Iricutusan po kami ni Madaine JANET LIM NAPOLES na ifllow-np sa kanila yong riga dokamento para mapetilis ang pugpoproseso rita, 84, Ts Kilala mo ba kung sinuesino naman itong mga contact persons ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa DBM? Si Sa DBM po ay sa opisina ni Usec MARIO RELAMPAGOS kami pinagpa-follow up ni madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Ang mga tinalawagen po namin ay sina LEA, MALOU at, LALAINE ra naka- assign aa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS, 2 Sinunpag Salaysey 0 Meslina Sutas,expra note $0, tp 6.85. Tr Bakit doon kayo nagéo-follow up sa office mi USEC RELAMPAGOS? S: Sa pagiaisealam ko po, door ginngama ang SARO. 86 Ts Nabanggit_ mo rin na may mga piling government agencies si JANET LIM NAPOLES na nag-iimplement mg government projects, maari bang lamar: lung anti-ano ang mga ito? Si Ang mga pinipilé ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na government agencies na nag- implement ng government projects na nasa meni ng DBM ay ang Technology and Livelihood and Resource Center (TLRC) neong 2006 to 2007, National Livelihood Development Corporation GVEDO) noong 2009 to 2011, National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) noong 2008 to 2009, at so ‘mga Local Government Units (LGUs) noong 2017 to 2012.0 67. Since the evidence show that it was Napoles who had her web of connections in the Executive branch, then it becomes clear that it was not me who “persuaded or influenced” these agencies to contract the Napoles NGO's. 68. Indeed, if any conspiracy existed in this case, the conspiracy was between Napoles and the members of her group, including the “whistleblowers,” as admitted by the latter themselves: 90. Ts Maaari mo bang sabihin kung papa nikita ang Php 900 million na pondo sa Malampaya Fund ng mga NGOs ni Madame JENNY? Si Opo. Noong banddang July 0 August 2009 po ay pinulong kami ni Madame JENNY se opisina para sabikit ‘sn amin nt may nakuha siyang pondo mula sa DAR. Nong tiga panahon na iyor ay tala pa kaming ideya kung san imanggagating at magkano ang sinasabi mi Madame JENNY hua pondo. Ayan sa kanye ay maghanda daw kami ng mga dokumento para sa proyekto na sinasabi niya, Sinunod naming ang kanyang utos sa amin na maghanda ng mga Jailogang dobuomento. 2 Raragigang Simmpong Salayscy ni Benbur K Lay dated September 12,2013, © Sinus Slant Merling Sus, raps note 80 at p17I DID NOT RECEIVE COMMISSIONS, SHARES, PERCENTAGES OR KICKBACKS IN CONNECTION WITH THE UTILIZATION OF MY PDAF ALLOCATIONS. 69. The essence of the complaint against me is that T have allegedly amassed, accumulated, and acquired ill-gotten wealth exceeding P50 Million, thereby constituting the crime of plunder. However, a review of all the documents attached to the complaint, particularly the affidavits executed by the supposed whistleblowers, shows that there is absolutely no credible evidence to support such serious and false accusations. 70. As will be shown below, I did not acquire, amass, or sccumtlate a single centavo ofil-gotten wealth. Until this pork barrel scam came out, I honestly believed that the PDAF allocated to my office was being released and used for a legitimate purpose. If there had been any misuse of my PDAF, I can honestly say that I did not participate in such transaction and that I did not receive any form of commission, kickback or rebate in connection with said (mis)use of my office’s PDAF. This criminal prosecution for plunder against me is, therefore, without any basis, both in fact and in law. There is no evidence at all, even in the affidavits of the whistleblowers, to prove that I personally received = any commission, kickback or rebate. 71. Based on their own affidavits, the whistleblowers admitted that they never saw me personally receive any moneys of any amourst ‘whatsoever from Napoles or her representatives, or that they ever transacted with me personally. 72. Benhur Luy admitted that he never had the chance to personally hand commissions to me, or to any senator for that matter. Obviously, Benhur Luy has no personel knowledge whether I actually received the alleged kickbacks or rebates. The accusation that I received kickbacks or commissions from Napoles is, therefore, purely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. t67. T: — Mayroon bang pagkakntaon na ikaro mismo ay nakspagbigay ng pera na “rebates” ng transaction sa Senador © Congressman 0 sa kung sino mang representative ng pulse? Si Opa, Sa mga Chiefof Stafng mga Senador at sa mga Congressman misma ay nakpag-abot ra po ako ng personal Pero sa mga Senador po ay wala pong pagkakataaon na ‘ako mismo ang nag-abot. Naririnig ko lang kay ‘Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na nagbibigay daw sa ga Senador.® 73. Likewise, Merlina Sunas admitted that she never had a personal occasion to bring money to my house or to the house of my chief-of staff: 57, T_ Nagharoon ka ba ng paghskataon na maghatid ng pera sa bahay ng senadoro sa kanyang Chie of Staf? S| Wale po. 74. At first, it would seem that Merlina Sunas has personal knowledge regarding the kickbacks that I supposedly received, to wit: 51. T: Mari mo bang ipaioanag ang ibig mong sbihin na fang pondo na sa kelp napa 30 dapat na beneficiaries ay snpuote kay Madame JENNY at sa ign senadar? ‘So Dahil sa ang pondo mula sa PDAF na dapat mapunte sn mga proyelto ey poneghahatin, Limampuorg porsyento (60%) so mambabates, limang porsyento (%) sa Chief of Staff ng. ramabates, sempung porsyento (10%) sa implementing agency at ang natitirg tallumput limang porsyento (35%) ay nepupunta lay Madame JENNY. 75. However, upon further questioning, she admitted that her knowledge was based merely on the information relayed to her by Napoles, to wit: 52, Tr Maari mo bang sabihin kung paano mo nalaman eng sistema ng katian ng iyong binangget? Si Sinasabi sa amin ni Madame JENNY. 76. Merlina Suftas repeatedly admits that her. knowledge of the supposed connection between me and Napoles is based on what Napoles told her: “Sinunpaang Slayny ol Beat Lxy, pra nota 52a. 19, SinumpaongSelayeny ni Melina Sas, spre note $0 tp. 12 ldap Hap.82, Ts Pano mo nalalaman na st PDAF ng mga nabangyit ‘mong miga senador at congressman nanggagaling ang poralo ng niga ibn pang NGOs naitinatag nt Madame JENNY? Si” Si Madame JENNY po ang nagsasabi sa amin, Mini-miting kami ni Madame JENNY pera sabihin ne may parating na pondo at sascbihin niye kang kaninong PDAF galing at sesabihin din niya kung anang foundation o NGO ang gagamitin. At ako rin ang isa ea mga naghahanda rng mga dokwumento na kailangan. 77. Merlina Suftas' allegation is, thus, purely hearsay. Merlina Suhas does not really know (as I did not) whether I received 50% of my PDAF in the form of kickbacks. She based her statement only on what was supposedly relayed to her by Napoles. 78. Whistleblower Nova Kay Macalintal, the former personal aide of Napoles and President of Tanglaw para sa Magsasaka Foundation, relates how she and Napoles met with personalities involved in the alleged PDAF scam. However, she never mentioned that she dealt with me, or any of my staff. In fact, Nova admitted that she never saw my chiefof-staff, Atty. Gigi Reyes, who, according to the complainants, allegedly received kickbacks on my behalf: 26. Ts Kilala mo ba itong sina Ruby Tuazom at Gig Reyes? 8! Si Ruby Tuazor po ay kilalako kas lagi nga po siyang umupunta doon, At minsan ay nakikita kong biigibyan siya nig pera ni Ate Jenny bago wmalis. Mingan nga ay hinahatid ko pa siya sa lobby ng condominisin. Pero si Gigi Reyes ay hindi ko po nakikita ng personal. 79. There is absolutely no testimonial evidence that I personally received commission, kickback or rebates. Not one of the alleged whistleblowers stated that any amount of money ‘was handed to me personally or through my staff, or that any commission or kickback was deposited to my account through bank tansfers) direct dposits or any other way of putting in) money to my account, 80. Benhur Luy even admitted that all information regarding the participation of the senators and congressmen in the use of sheir respective PDAP are from Janet Napoles: & tatp.16 © SirumpengSaaysy ni Nova Key Macalintal ded September 12,2013, 7.81. 82, However, neither Benhur Luy nor any other whistleblower cannot link me to Napoles through any of the above incidents. 51 Ts Papmano mo naman nalemian ra madales na nagagamit © nakukuha ni JANET LIM NAPOLES ang PDAF ng raga nabangsit mong puto? S$: Kasi po bukod sa nakikita ko sila sa opisina ng JLN' Corporation 0 se. mga parties ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES 0 madalas na kausap sa telepeno, ay sila rin lagi fang nasa records ko na pinagbibigyan ng pera ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Gaya po ng sinabi ho, ako po ang jinwutusan ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na gumatea ng mga dokumento at maghanda ng pera para sa rebates ng mga Senador 0 Congressmas: na mga ito. May voucher po kasi ang mga pera na tumalabas so JLN Conyoration, Doon sa voucher ay nakalagay ang pangolan ng taong pagitibigyan gaya ng Senador, 0 Chiefof Staff nila, © Congressman, 0 sinumang public official na kumskua ng Febates sa mga government projects na ipinapntupad ng NGOs 0 foundations ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES® 6 Summarizing his very own statement above, Benhur Luy’s knowledge that legislators supposedly received kickbacks is based on three incidents: + When he saw some of the legislators in the office of Napoles; + When the legislators attend the parties organized by Napoles; and + When the legislators and Napoles frequently talk over the phone. 824 Benhur Luy himself admitted that he never saw me or any of my staff visit Napoles’ office. This was also confirmed by the other whistleblowers 82.2 I never attended any of the parties organized by Napoles, This was confirmed by the whistleblowers when they made a detailed enumeration of all personalities whom they saw attending Napoles’ parties. In fact, while claiming that he saw certain legislators (particularly senators) in the parties hosted by Napoles, Benhur Luy never mentioned my name or that of any member of my staff © Sinunpaang Slayay ni Bentur Lay, spre note 52 tp. 15,83, Napol ” 65. Ts Nebanggit mo din na may mga Senador 0 Congressman na punpunta sa parties 0 gatherings ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES, “sinu-sino naman amg mga tt? S: Sila Senador BONG REVILLA, Senador JINGGOY ESTRADA, at Congressman RODOLFO PLAZAS 823 Likewise, 1 have never visited the office of Janet Napoles. This fact is confirmed by none other than Benhur Luy: 64 T—Nabanggit_mo ba may miga pulitito na Pumupunta sa opisinang JLN Corporation, sinu-sino are ang niga ito? S: Nan lamang sa madales na nakikite ko na uomunta sa opising ng JLN Corporation ty sina Congressman Redolfe PLAZA, Congressman EDGAR VALDEZ, dating Congressman PROSPERO PICHAY at Congressman CONSTANTINO JARAULA.® Noteworthy at this point is the testimony of Marina Sula, les’ employee for sixteen years. In her affidavit, Marina Sula identified all the personalities such as senators, congressmen, chiefs-of-staff and other politicians, whom she saw visit the JLN office or attend events hosted by Napoles, to wit: 32. Im the sixteen (16) yeors that I worked with Ms. Nopoles, 1 ‘witnessed several personalities visit our offices and join us ae our special guests during our penalties and other special occasions. 38, These personalities who would either visit our office or joi ‘ur events and afars are: Senator Franklin Drilon, Senator Jinggoy Estrada and family, Senator Bong Reville, Lani Mercado-Revile, Bryan Revili, Secretary Rene Villa, Congressman Pichay and Wife, Congressman Plaza, Congressman Ducut, DAR Theresita Panic, Catherine Mae Conlas Santos, Pauline Labayen, Jon Corpus (Staff of Senator Sotto), Mayor Rene Maglangue, Atty. Deguiea, Justice Gregory Ong, Governor Imee Marcos, Bryan Yansuan, Atty. Cumbe (COS of Sen. Bong Revilla, Mr. Joy Stonalpong (COS of Cong Rizalina Lanet), Cong. Conrado Estrella, Ruby Tuazon, Congressman Valdes, Mrs. Amata (LDC), Bhel Concepcion (TRC), ‘Rhoda Mendoza (NABCOR), Menong Maceda.7 Carerers » it 7 SwoonStatement of Marina Sula dated 29 Augurt 213 [hereinafter refered to a8 the *Swom Statement of Marina Sul)‘6 84, Marina Sula even detailed the participation of the guests at the parties and events organized by Napoles: 63 T: yon sa pamgraph Nos, 32 at 33 ng. iyong sinumpaang.salaysay na may petsang 29. Agosto 2013, niahanggit mo ang mge personalidad na nolkita mong bumibisia eo inyong opine od kaya naman ea tuting may party 0 special oceasions si JANET NAPOLES ay may mga special guests kayo na Knabbilangen ng mga nnllaking Pelt at ang th naman ay say ig Banh st ‘gobyerno. Maar mo bang iad ang mgs pangyayri stm fret paghatataon a nate mo silt tnyeng pagkak-dlale? Ope, vistisakin ko po ang mga pangysyari sa. mga paglakalaon na nakite ho ang miga tong rabarggt ho 4)" Sen. FRANKLIN DRILON ed wife = Nong taong 2009 po ay makita ho sia sa Heritage Park se Taguig City nang funni sila sa deat aniversary ng nanay ni Madar JANET NAPOLES. 8) Sec. RENE VILLA ~ Nakita ko po siya ng dala (2) Fanggang tating (3) beses nag pura sa ag episina 1 Discovery Cente, Oris. ©) Congresswoman ZENAIDA DUCUT ~ Nokkite ko po siya se tuzing anniversary po ng JLN Corporation, death nniversary ng mother nt Madam JANET NAPOLES, at 2 opisma po 22 Discovery Centre pog may business na ui discs si Mada JANET sa aj 4) Mayor RENE MAGLANQUE = Nagpupunta po siya st opisina sa Discovery Centre, Ortigas neong siya ay nak ‘sign pe lamang sa DOTC. Sa paghalalar ka po ay may consinuclion company siya na sivang funstuak st pagan sa QC Towninnse ng JCLN Real Estate Development Consortium, Inc. um pageant ng anak i radars JANET NAPOLES. Siya div ang contractor sa Pinapegewang building sa AFPOVAL ng Divine Mercy retreat House ng JIN Conporation @) Manong ERNIE MACEDA ~ Nakitita ko po siya non sa Unit 2505 Diesovery Centre dab don po siya nag-hald ng campaign ofce nia nitongraaraang eleksyon J) Sen. INGGOY ESTRADA ard family ~ Nakata ko po si Sen. JINGGOY se tuving anniversary pong. JLN Corporation af death anniversary ng mater ni Madam JANET NAPOLES. Bumibisita dn po siya sa opisina sa Discovery’ Centre, Ortigas. Si Precy (essen mi Sen. JINGGOY) kasoma minsan ang nenay mia, ay rakikila ong nagpupunta sa bahay ni Madem JANET NAPOLES sa South Garden Unit, Pacjc Polen tower, the Fort Teg City noon abo ay pasion rappin 4g) Sem. Bong Revilla and wife Lani ~ Nakita ko po site pag fnniversary ng JLN Corporation at death anniversary ng mother ni Madam JANET NAPOLES. Si Sen. BONGREVILLA ay nate fo ring nagpupunta so oming opsina se Discovery Contre, Orig, 1) BRYAN REVILLA ~ Natta ho po sya sa Sout Garden Unit, Batic Paze Power, at a JEN Corporation ofe on Discovery Contre, Ortigas dal soso o partner agen nana lll es pargelan Janes Cvistoper sa business rileng PBS] Corporation 4) Governor IMEE MARCOS ~ Nakikits to po siyang fusap ni Madar JANET NAPOLES st 2501 Discovery Centre, Ortigas ago mag 2013 elekyon 1) Congressman PROSPERO PICHAY md wife ~ rndalas fe po slg Mite st 2501 Discovery Centre ats South Gorden Unit Bree Plaza Tower go ntiguon ng ‘warrant of erst Madame JANET NAPOLES 1) Me CONDELINA AMATA (NLDO) ~ Nokia bo siya song rey si ‘ong tonyng son a nagpapngemot on NKTI Hospital. Stang mages ey nagparta din sa ofc se 2502 Discovery Centre, Ortigas ‘Alo rin ard nogpadala ng pera porns pambayad ng fgumot Mige tating bese fo po aang anal ng pera st inept 1) BEL CONCEPCION (TRC) ~ Nelekta ko po siye pag sroncerary ng JUN Corporation ot dest anniversany ng ‘mother ni Madam JANET NAPOLES. 1m) BORGY MANOTOC - Madalns yo sige a0 ofce a 2505 Discovery Sites, Ortgns dail tbiga a asonyo sia at Birdhouse ng isang event management pero gumagamt ng bong tao pangaln 3) RHODA MENDOZA (NABCOR) - Nakita ko siyong nagpuota 20 ofce sa Discovery Centre debt ang ag apes ng mga liuidation 2a mgs projects ng NGO sn NABCOR 6) PALILINE LABAYEN - Sta po siya ni Sen. JINGGOY ESTRADA. Palagi ko siyang nalikita na ry clang documents. part Any Madar JANET. NAPOLES st svonverary ng JLN Conportion na ginanap so 22 facr 1g Disovery thingy din po siya i Madam JANET 1g ssc p) MAE CATHERINE SANTOS ~ Nolita to siya so 188 Preyie Plan Tower et s0 2502 Discovery ofce ng JLN Corporation. Madales ain siyang simattend ng. Webreséoy Mass st ofce, pag may olasyon, at st Heritage Prk 4) TERESITA PANLILIO (DAR) - Nokikita ko o siya pog ray okay at kag it po siya mi Madam JANET NAPOLES nun punsinla a aming opis on Discovery Contre, Ortigas 1) Ally. ANTHONY DEQUINA = Sign po ang kibigang mata ni Madam JANET NAPOLES at sive ang nog asikaso $0 lai mg mother ni Mam JANET. Madala po Siyong puomupunta a ening office sn Discovery Conte, Oniges peg oats rng Mail. ~9) BRYAN YAMSUAN ~ Nakita po sia at nakewsep sa fie sa Discovery Centre, Ortigas dai! may inal siya ra property ky Madam JANET NAPOLES. Ang roperty na isang Condominium st Rocke, ey bin Madam at ako ang nautusan magbigy ng miga octet ara sa pag transfer mito mula sa anon nt Bryan to [LN Global Properties Development Corp. Nabayaran na ng bo ngayon taon, 2013, pero dahil may kung pang decd of undertaking na kailingan amg pita ng asa kaye dt pa nalpat 9 Congressrian CONRADO ESTRELLA Ii ~ Dalawa (2) hanggang.ttlong (3) beses ko po siyang natiteng egpunts se Discovery Contre ncong: may. projects ‘Madam JANET NAPOLES se kenya. May. mga bagkakstcon po na alo ang nagsi-serve ut kanya ng cee 4) RUBY TUASON ~ Madalas ko po siyang nubile sa ace ng JUN Corporation sa Discovery Cente Dumadato din o siya a mgnokzsyon ni Mata JANET NAPOLES. "May mga paginkataon po ne nebitte ko ‘siyang ineabutan ni Madar JANET NAPOLES ng pera fepag’nngpupunita sige sa episina. Tsong beses di po akong. nautusan ni Madam JANET NAPOLES 10 maghatid sa kanya ng pera sa kanyong bahay ef siya nism ag pagal onto, 2) Congressman EDGAR VALDEZ ~ Maraming bess ka po siyang makita so offer ng JLN Conporation sa 2502 Discovery Conte sa offce mismo nt Madane JANET NAPOLES. 1) Justice GREGORY ONG = Isang beses ko po sivang naling nagpuota se offer sa 2501 Discovery Cente, Ortigas at makita ko po silang maghmusnp ni Madan, JANET NAPOLES sa conference room. 10 JEN CORPUZ ~ Staff po siya wi Sen, TITO SOTTO. Nakita ko po siyong negpunta ng isang beses sa office ng TEN Corporation sa Discovery Centre, Ortigas, ¥) Congressman RODOLFO PLAZA ~ Nakikita ko po siya pag anniversary ng JEN Corporation at death anniversary ing mother ni Madam JANET NAPOLES, Madalas sSiymng magpunta sa JLN ofce sa Discovery Centre, Ortigas. Noite ko din po siyong magpupunta es bay ni Madon JANET NAPOLES ee South Garden Unit Pacific Plaza Tower ritong Hulya hanggeng Agosto ng 201372 85, It is very clear that Marina Sula’s exhaustive and detailed enumeration of people visiting JLN’s office or residence, or attending social functions, did not include me or any of my staff. ‘This only confirms that I never attended any of the gatherings and events hosted by Napoles and that I never visited Napoles in her 7 Karagaegang SinpaangSalayiy ni Maina Sala dated September 12, 2013, pp 2-24 ta office, her house or anywhere else. Thus, the basis of Benur Lay in saying that some legislators received commissions from Napoles, i.e, he saw them visit the office or residence of Napoles and/or attend social functions, does not apply to me or any of my staff. I never authorized anyone to transact with, much less receive commissions, kickbacks or rebates from, the Napoles group in connection with the use of my PDAE. 86, As there is no evidence at all that I personally received any commission or kickback, what complainants allege is that I have purportedly designated “representatives” who received funds or moneys from Napoles or her representatives: 57: Te Sinabi mo na iniepey mo sa voucher iyong pagan ang bug sno mia ang kaka ng per, may mga paghakataon Int na yong sinabi sa iyo ni JANET LIM NAPOLES na kul ng pera ay iba sa tematanggnp? Si Maron po, Kusuzr po sa mge Senador, sasabiin ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na kinukuka a ui ‘ganitong Senador ang kanya kickback pero ang pera sy fauunin ng kanyang Chisfof Staff 0 representative niyt Talagay ko iyang pangalan 0 codename ng Senador tapos indicate ko na “care of” tapos iyon pangalan © cordename ng kung sinuman ang tumanggap. 63. Ts Nabanggit mo na may mga ChisfofStaff mg mga ‘Senador na ka-transact ni JANET LIM NAPOLES, manari mo bang parigalanar kung sintu-sino amg mgr ito? S:. Kay Senador ENRILE, ang Chief of Staff po niya na nakakausap mi Madame NAPOLES ay dati si RUBY TUASON 0 a hays po si Atty. JESSICA REYES or Ma'am Gigi xxx 87, Even Annex “B” to the Pinagsamang Sintumpaang Salaysay of BENHUR K. LUY, MERLINA P. SUNAS, GERTRUDES K. LUy, NOVA KAY BATAL-MACALINTAL, ELENA 8. ABUNDO, at AVELINA C. LINGO, dated September 11, 2013, which is a memorandum prepared by Benhur K. Luy listing all the 2 Siumpanng Slaeay ol Bent K, Lay, supra nota 52 at pp. 16-18,commissions allegedly given to me, indicates that the disbursements were all in “cash’ and received by other persons: at one time by a certain “Butch Twason”, another by a certain “Te! de Joya/Atty. Villamor,” and in another single instance “delivered by Jolin: Raymund fo Atty. Jessica Reyes.” In about eight (8) instances, the cash was allegedly received by a certain “Ruby Tuason,” 88. However, except for my former chief-of-staff. I have never dealt with any of these people who supposedly received commissions for me. They are not connected with me or with my office in any capacity. It is, therefore, impossible for them to receive anything (kickbacks, bribes, compensation) on my behalf. I should point out also that the affidavits executed by the whistleblowers never mentioned the names of Butch Tuason, Tet de Joya, or Atty. Villamor in relation to me. The names of these people appeared only in Benhur Luy’s “accounting records.” 89. L hereby categorically assert that I did not authorize any of the above-mentioned persons, or anybody for that matte, to receive kickbacks on my behalf To be criminaily accountable for such kickbacks supposedly received by “representatives”, if any, there must be proof to establish the criminal element of dolo, ie, that I knew of such kickbacks having been received and that I consented fo someone receiving it for me. No such proof is shown, as indeed I have not really known of such kickbacks, much less consented to having someone receive them for me. 90. I know of Ruby Tuason casually, having met her while she was an Appointment Secretary in Melacafiang during the time of Pres. Joseph Estrada, but I have never been in any business or social relations with her, much less has she been appointed a member of my Senate staff. A certification that Ruby Tuason has never been a member of my Senate staff is attached hereto as Annex “B’, 91. The whistleblowers had the impression that Ruby Tuason represented me because, as pointed out in their Sinumpaang Salaysay mentioned in paragraph 33 above, they allegedly heard ‘Napoles tell them so ~ hence, hearsay again. 92. The whistleblowers themselves are confused on who is the principal of “Ruby Tuason,” hence their allegation on this matter does not merit any evidentiary weight.s 53) T: Se paragraph No. 24 ng iyong sinumpasng solaysay na may petsang 29 Agesto 2013, nabanggit mo ang isang nagngangalang RUBY TUAZON na tumangeap ng. pera ‘muita kay JANET NAPOLES, sino ba ito? S: Si RUBY TUAZON po ang nagsislibing agent 0 ‘middleman namin kay Sen. JINGGOY ESTRADA. Siva po ang kortak ramin se pakikipag-transaksyom s2 PDAF wi ‘Sen, JINGGOY.% 93. The complaint also alleges that my chief-of-staff, Atty. Gigi Reyes, supposedly received the kickbacks and commissions on my behalf. However, such bare allegation is not supported by any admissible evidence. No proof was presented to show that first, Atty. Gigi Reyes actually received money from Janet Napoles, and second, assuming that she did, that Atty. Gigi Reyes received said money on my behalf, Not one of the whistleblowers stated in his or her affidavit that he or she has actually seen Atty. Gigi Reyes receive money from Janet Napoles. 94. Although Benhur Luy claimed my chief-of-staff supposedly received kickbacks, he wrongly identified a certain Ruby Tuason as my supposed chief-of-staff, to wit: 63, Tr Nabanggit mo na may mga Chiefof Staff ng mga Senador nia kactransect ni JANET LIM NAPOLES, mnaari mo bang pogalanan kung sinu-sino ang mga io? S: Kay Senador ENRILE, ang Chief of Staff po niya ma rake-usap ni Madame NAPOLES ‘ay dait ‘si RUBY TUASON xxx 68. T: Maori mo bang sabihin kun sinu-sino itong mga tinetukoy mong Chief of Staff ng Senador na tumanggap ng pera na “rebates” 60 fransaction kay JANET LIM NAPOLES? ‘S:Opo, kina Atty, RICHARD CAMBE sa opisina ni Senador BONG REVILLA, Ms. PAULINE LABAYEN, st opisina ni Senador JINGGOY ESTRADA, Ms. RUBY TUASON sa opisina hina Senador JUAN PONCE ENRILE 1 Sentador JINGGOY ESTRADA 98. As previously stated, I never had any dealings with Ruby Tuason. She is obviously not, and has never been, my chief-of- staff. Neither is she connected in any way with my office. Nor 1% Siumpeang Solnysay ni Marina Sala y Cortez dated September 12, 2013, p. 18 [hereinafter seers tos” Sinmpanng Slaeny ni Marina Sul" % Simunpaang Slayeny ni Benhur Uy, pre note 52 at pp. 16-18.have I ever authorized Ruby Tuason, or any other person, to receive kickbacks or commissions from Napoles. 96. Even Merlina Sunas, who appears to be a regular contact between Napoles and the legislators, testified that she was able to transact with a chief of staff of a senator only twice. However, such transaction did not involve me or any of my staff. 58. T_ Nagkaroon ba ng paghekntaon na sa fyo kinuhe ang porsyento ng senador? Si” Mayroon po. Dalewang pagkakalaon nasa skin into ang porsyento ng senador ng kanyang Chief of Sta 59. Tr Mari mo bang tukuyin kung sinong Chief of Staff ng senador ang nagpunta sa iyo para kunin ang prosiyento nya? S!SiAtty, RICHARD CAMBE na Chef of Staff ni Sen. Ramon Reuilla Jr. pero it ey hind particular sa POPDF! at nangyar larang nitong 2011." 97. Atty, Jessica “Gigi” Reyes and Jose Antonio Evangelista had been working with me for almost 25 years and 20 years, respectively, and T have no doubt about their honesty and integrity. All throughout those long years, they have not done anything illegal, dishonest, or committed a violation of the rectitude a public servant should conduct himself or herself. Assuming, arguendo, that Atty. Gigi Reyes, or any other person for that matter, received money from Napoles - which, knowing her all those years, I believe she did not - such act cannot be attributed to me, there being no proof at all that she received such money on my behalf. Apart from the complainants’ bare assertion that Atty. Gigi Reyes acted on my behalf, not an iota of proof, either testimonial or documentary, was presented to prove such allegation. 98. At best, the prosecution’s only proof that I authorized Atty. Gigi Reyes to act on my behalf (in connection with the use of my officer's PDAB) is the letter dated 21 March 2012, a copy of which is shown below: > Siang Salayny nl Merlina Stas, spre note $0 at p1299. As shown above, the only authorization I gave is for my former chief-of-staff and deputy chief-of staff to “sign pertinent documents to ensure the proper implementation of such livelihood projects subject to pertinent government accounting and auditing laws, rules and regulations.” There is nothing unlawful or anomalous in the authorization that I issued as I merely authorized my staff to do lawful acts “to ensure the proper implementation of such livelihood projects.” The authorization cannot be extended to include the performance of unlawful acts. Itis a very common practice for public officers, businessmen and even ordinary people to authorize another person to perform awful acts or transact in their behalf when they cannot personally do such acts. In the event that the authorized agent goes beyond his authority and performs an unlawful act, the principal cannot be made responsible for such illegal and unauthorized action of the agent. There is no documentary evidence to prove that I received any commission or kickback from Janet Napoles or any of the whistleblowers, either personally or through an authorized representative.100. Aside from the fact that there is 10 testimonial evidence against me, there is likewise no documentary evidence to show that I received any commission or kickback. Despite the voluminous records submitted before this Honorable Office; the complainants failed to show even one credible document which will prove that I (either personally or through an authorized representative) actually dealt with Napoles or anyone acting on her behalf, much less received commissions, kickbacks or xebates. There are no vouchers, acknowledgment receipts, or records of bank transactions that would confirm my receipt of the alleged Kickbacks or rebates 201. ‘The only document presented by complainants is Benhur Luy’s alleged “accounting records”. However, a perusal of the “accounting records” will readily show that there is nothing in it which can serve as a valid basis to include me in this pork barrel scam. Notably, my name never appeared as actual recipient of the supposed commissions and kickbacks: 102, Benhur Luy’s “accounting records” allegedly show that 1 amassed ill-gotten wealth in the amount of P172,834,500.00 cash received by Butch Tuazon, “Tet de Joya/Atty Villamor”, Ruby‘Tuazon and Atty. Jessica Reyes for the several projects chargeable to my office's PDAF from 2004-2010. Benhur in his record noted Php1,500,000.00 for 2004, Php14,622,000.00 for 2005; Php13,300,000.00 for 2006; Php27,112,500 for 2007; Php62,550,000.00 for 2008; Php23,750,000.00 for 2009, and Php30,000,9000.00 for 2010. 103, Explaining the nature of his alleged “record”, Benhur Luy asserted that: 57, Ts Sinabi mo na inilalagay mo sa voucher iyong pangalan ng kung sino man ang kukaika ng pera, may ‘mga pagkakataon ba na iyong sinabi sa iyo ni JANET LIM NAPOLES na kukuha ng pera ay iba sa tatonggap? S: Meron po. Kuntoari po sa mga Senador, sasabihin ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na kinukuha na ni ganitong Senador ang kanyang kickback pero ang pera ay kukunin ng kanyang Chief of Staff 0 representative niya. Ilalagay ko iyong pangalan o codename ng Senador tapos i-indicate ko na “care of’ tapos iyon pangalan o codename ng kung sinuman ang tumanggap.7” 104. In the same Sinumpaang Salaysay, Benhur Luy categorically admitted that his statement that the Senators were receiving kickbacks is based on the information allegedly relayed to her by Janet Napoles: 67. Ts Mayroon bang pagkakataon na ikato mismo ay nakapagbigay ng pera na “rebates” ng transaction sa Senador 0 Congressman 0 sa kung sino mang representative ng pulitiko? S: Opo. Samga Chief-of-Staffng mga Senador fats mga Congressman mismo ay nakapag-abot na po ako ng personal. Pero sa mga Senador po ay wala pong pagkakataaon na ako mismo ang nag- abot. Naririnig ko lang kay Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na nagbibigay daw sa mga Senador.* 105. It is thus clear that what he put in his “personal record” are amounts of what Napoles supposedly told him as the supposed share of a Senator, hence, hearsay again. This document, therefore, > Sunprag Slay ni Bear Lay, wpa nate 2a pp. 1617. Maplehas absolutely no probative value, It cannot be used to prove that 1, either personally or through anyone acting on my behalf, received any money (or “share") from the use of my office's PDAF. 106. Moreover, the documents from which the figures on the table are supposedly based were never submitted by Benhur Luy. 107. Benhur Luy’s personal records is inadmissible in the light of the whistleblowers disclosure that the original copies of papers, fom which such record could have been derived, were shredded and destroyed. 28. Sometime last January 2013, JLN ceased to hold office at Discovery Suites, she brought all the papers and documents from Discovery Suites to Pacific Plazz Tower. Ms. Napoles directed ws to start shredding the following decaments: original copies of the BIR books of accounts, SEC, $58, PhilHealth, benk statements, ised checks, extra copies of deeds of sale of properties, xerox copies of TCT's, CAR’s, Tax Declarations, xerox copies oftheir passports, and index cords where loans made by politicians and obher persons were recorded, MOA's, delivery receipts, sales invoices, official receipts, inudorsemant letters from politicians addressed to. the Government Agencies and to the Department of Budget and Management, project inspection reports, lst of beneficiaries, report of disbursement report, certificates of acceptance, photocopies of checks paid to the NGO's by the government, et. 29. The reason Ms. Napoles gave for shredding all the office Alocuments was so that she would not be caught with any dactomerts ‘of NGO's that cam be used as evidence against her, We used about Str or more shredding machines which eventually got destroyed from the sheer volume of documents we had to shred. 30. Ms. Nepoles feared that the NBI might raid the office at Paoific Plaza s0 she got adjoining hotel rooms at Discovery Suites which she referred to in code as “parking”. Here we continued to hold ofice aed the shredding of more dacuncents.”” 108. Thus, the “personal record” of witness Benhur Luy, on which the amount of purported “ill-gotten wealth” charged against me is, solely based, rests merely on vouchers prepared by Luy himself, but the contents of which were based merely on the say-so of Napoles, hence, essentially hearsay ~ again: 7 Swom Statement of Marina C. Sula, prs note.In Sanvicente People, we held that when evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight for being partially hearsay. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence.” I DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH JANET NAPOLES, THE HEADS OF. IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, AND THE HEADS OF THE NGOS CONCERNED IN ORDER TO AMASS. ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH. 109. Given the total absence of any act on my part in the perpetration of the alleged crime of plunder, complainants are foisting the reverse (albeit strained) theory that I, a member of the Legislative branch, am the co-conspirator (instead of the implementing agencies of the Executive branch) with the Napoles group. This “conspiracy” theory is obviously a gratuitous ploy in order that all acts attributed to Napoles in the perpetration of the fraud may likewise be attributed to me. Conspiracy having been adequately shown, all the accused are answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their participation. In fact, it is not necessary to ascertain the individual participation in the final liquidation of the victims oto ascortain the precise modality or extent of pasticipation of ‘each individual conspirator asthe applicable rule is thatthe act of one conspiator isthe act of all of them 110. By statutory definition, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it® The essence of conspiracy, therefore, is the combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose. Its elements are: agreement to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in furtherance of the illegal purpose; and requisite intent necessary to commit the underlying substantive offense. 5 People Masinag vd, de Rama, 408 SCRA 167 (200. © Pepe. Tonepel, GR. No. 115231 (Apel 18,1995 ‘Atle (2), Revised Penal Code, ABUSCA. See 571 Unite Snes. Machor- Lops, 67 F286, 690 (1980.o 111. Thus, in a charge alleging conspiracy, it is necessary to show: (a) the agreement; (b) the offense toward which the agreement was directed; and (<) the overt acts performed in furtherance of the agreement.’ 112. Nowhere in the affidavits, however, was it alleged that 1 came into an agreement with Napoles, the heads of the various implementing agencies, and the heads of the various NGOs to amass ill-gotten wealth and to commit the crime of plunder. Neither was there any admissible evidence from the whistleblowers that I performed certain acts in furtherance of any such agreement. In other words, the complainants’ affidavits miserably failed to allege, much less prove, any conspiracy. 113. For conspiracy to be appreciated, it cannot just be plucked out of thin air. Tt is not sufficient that it be loosely inferred. ‘The overt acts which constitute the pattern indicative of the overall scheme or conspiracy, and the pattern itself, must be alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt. 114, The term “pattern” is, thus, sufficiently defined in the Anti- Plunder Law, specifically through Section 4* read in relation to Section 1(d) and Section 2 of the same law: 114.1 First, under Section 1(d), a pattern consists of at least a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Section 1(4); 114.2 Second, pursuant to Section 2 of the law, the “pattern” of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable a public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth; and 1143 Third, there must either be an “overall unlawful scheme” or “conspiracy” to achieve said common goal. As © Reo. Unite Stats, 327 F2d 499 (1963. % Seeton of he AntPlander Law (Republic Aet No, 708) provides Section 4, Rule of Evidence For purposes of establihing the crime of plunder, shall net be necessary to prove each and every crinal at done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy {0 nas, sccumulate or acquite dkgoten weal, i being sutcint to eatablish beyond reasonable doube« pattem of avert or criminal acts indicative of th overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)a commonly understood, the term “overall unlawful scheme” indicates “a general plan of action or method” which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving, with him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain said common goal. 115. While the complainants attempted to show a pattern or common purpose—to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth the affidavits and the supporting documents miserably failed to show any participation on my part in the alleged conspiracy. It was not shown that I agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing, accumulation «and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth, Neither was there any allegation, much less proof, of any specific individual acts, or pattern of acts, that I performed in pursuit of any purported agreement. 116. Moreover, assuming only for the sake of argument that the whistleblowers’ affidavits may be considered a “confession” of conspirators, such confessions are inadmissible in this case. For the whisteblowers’ confession to be admitted against me, the law requires “independent evidence” (je, evidence apart from the whistleblowers’ confession) showing my participation in the modus Unavaiting also is the nile that an extrajudicial confession may be admissible when it is used as a corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his conaccused. The implication of this rule is that there must be a finding of other circumstantial evidence which, when taken together with the confession, establishes the guilt of a co-accused beyond reasonable doubt. As earlier stated, theres no other prosecution evidence, direct or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession may coroborate, I People v. Berroys, we held that to hold an accused liable as co- principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the conspiracy. That overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of ‘moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present atthe time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy aver@ the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy” 117. Rule 130 of the Rules of COurt requires that there must be independent evidence of the conspiracy aside from the co-conspirator’s declaration. In this case, no such piece of evidence has beon submitted, SEC.30. Admission by conspirator - The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration, 118. There is not a scintilla of evidence that I “connived, “conspired”, or “agreed with” Napoles to persuade and influence the implementing agencies to award the contracts for project implementation to the Napoles NGOs, by violating the laws, rules, and regulations that they were principally and primarily bound to enforce, Indeed, the whistleblowers admit that they have never seen me in the company of, much less in a meeting with Napoles, and while the whistleblowers (ie., the complainants’ witnesses) have personally identified several personalities in the social affairs or visits of Napoles, or in their meetings in Napoles’s house/office or elsewhere, they have never identified me as among those personalities 88 119. I categorically state that I have never been an acquaintance, much less an associate in business, socials, or otherwise, of Napoles. If ever pictures are shown of me with Napoles, they were certainly taken during one or two occasions when strangers unexpectedly approach me to have pictures taken with me for souvenir or memento purposes, Surely pictures, if any, cannot by themselves be evidence of the relations which persons in the pictures have with each other, much less of what they have discussed on those occasions. 120. Conspiracy is not presumed. Community of criminal design must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Here, there is no evidence sufficient to establish conspiracy, since all my acts in relation to the utilization of my PDAF were lawful. Thus, my acts People. Gutsy, GR. No. 144621 (May 9, 2008), eniphass supplied Sinmun Salaysay i Marina Sula, sypre note 7 at pp. 21-24cannot, by themselves, be the evidence to establish any alleged conspiracy. CONCLUSION 121. There is, therefore, no legal and factual basis for complainants’ claims: (a) that I "persuaded/influenced”, or otherwise “induced” the implementing agencies to violate the pertinent laws, rales, and regulations as would ensure the selection of the Napoles NGOs and enable Napoles, thru her conduit NGOs, to defraud the public treasury, there being no ita of competent or admissible evidence that I personally and illegally endorsed, or otherwise incurred criminal culpability for endorsing, such NGOs to the erring implementing agencies; and (b) that I received “kickbacks’, “rebates”, or “commissions” from the fraudulent PDAF disbursements to the Napoles NGOs, there also being no iota of competent or admissible evidence of the alleged amount of kickbacks that I supposedly received nor that I actually received such kickbacks from Napoles personally or thru my supposedly authorized representatives. 122, Having miserably failed to establish their allegations that 1 “consistently chose” the Napoles NGO and that I actually received ‘kickbacks from Napoles for that purpose, the complainants’ theory of conspiracy among me, Napoles, and the implementing agencies must perforce be outrightly debunked. 123, All told, not only is the plunder complaint lodged against me devoid of legal and factual basis, but the evidence against me are also. “inexistent", “spurious”, “hearsay” or otherwise “inadmissible” or “incompetent”. Tt would indeed be a travesty of justice if such baseless and unfounded charges of plunder and ‘graficorrupt practices against me will be allowed to prosper.124. Most unfairly, even while claims of my criminal culpability are unfounded, I have been wildly accused and scurrilously prejudged by unscrupulous quarters as the “mastermind of the sean” to make me up in the squafe of public opinion as the proverbial “witch to be burned at the si SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2day of December 2013, affiant, who is personally known to me, exhibited to me his Passport No. EA0000192 issued on October 8, 2009 at DFA Manila, Syieniviig yg Document No, _40_; Page No. a) Book No. tt Series of 2013.Assisted By: i ELEAZAKB/REYES PTR No. 3673051; 1-3-13; Makati City IBP No. 916201; 1-4-13; Cagayan Roll No. 23827 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0013942; 13 March 2013 caine IR PTR No. 3673084; 1-3-2013; Makati City IBP No, 916204; 1-4-2013; Baguio Roll No. 43218 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0021729; 15 August 2013 ERWIN G. MATIB PTR No. 3673066; 1-4-2013; Makati City IBP No. 916214; 1-4-2013; Baguio-Benguet Roll No. 57834 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0018183; 23 April 2013 =) KAY anche [AFLORIDA PTR No. 3673067; 1-343; Makati City IBP No. 916215; 14-15; Camarines Sur Rell No. 59636 MCLE Compliance No. IV- 0013936; 13 March 2013 Copy Furnished: gh NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION” ao Taft Avenue, Ermita Manila ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD * c/o Villanueva & Baligod + #8” 93/8, The Lydia Building, 39 Polaris Street eee aed REGISTERED MAIL, W/ RETURN CARD ae na ttFIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE sary 4% Floor, Ombudsman Building . Agham Road, Quezon City 1100 REGISTERED MAIL W/ RETURN CARD DEC 20 2018 EXPLANATION OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL Due to lack of time and the distance involved, undersigned counsel were constrained to serve copies of the foregoing ‘Counter-Affidavit by registered mai Zi, a ELEAZAR B. REYES ERWIN G. MATIB[REPUDLIC OF THE PIMLIPPINES PR G6 Senate OFFICE OF SENATOR JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ‘August 29, 2013 HON. GRACE PULIDO-TAN ‘chairperson Commission on Ault Commonwealth Ave., Quézon Cty eer Chalrpercon Putido-Tan: ‘This pertains t6 the Speciat Aust Report of the Commission on Audit on the implementation of legislators” Priorty Development Assistance Fund {POAF) and Varleus Infrastructure including Local Projets (VIP), covering the period 2007-2008. Annex C of the COA Special Ausit Report refeis to the “Motrx of NGOs and the amounts released to them by the IAs which essentially contains the details on the POAF of Tegclotors corresponding, SAROS anid dmounts involved, a5 well 3s the conficmation weefuced by the COA Audit Team on sponsoring legislators regarding the. vality of Sioteres appearing on certain documents. Understandably, the bases of your annotation kai resord eo the projects of my principal, Sen. uan Ponce Enrile, under this Annex were The lutions te sent fo your office ted 21 March 2032-and 2 August 2022 Please allow me, however to correct the information which | stated in the 2 August zoiz-etter, sine Iwas able to go through the voluminous sets of documents previously Submits by the COA Audit Team to our office for verification purposes only after the Speci Aud Report came out last August 16, 2033, After careful examination of sald documents, dtcovered the following: : +1, Some Memoranéa of Agreement bear my forged signateres; 2. The folbwing documents were fabricated 3s they were supposedly signed by re Sur they were printed on paper bearing the letterhead.of the NGO and not on the Offtee of sPuPe'sJetterhesd: 2. Inspection and Accepterice Reports; and . Acknowledgement Receipts :apes nt ie 3. Myslgnatures in the following decuments and letters were forges: Projeer Proposals Partial/Fnal Accomplishment Reports: Reports of Disbursement; Inspection and Acceptance Reports; [Acknowledgement Receipts; and ‘Work a Financial Plan; “Atty, Jesslea Reyes! signatures in some letters and documents were forged 5, The fabricated documents and forged signatures which invited our attention When the issue of the projects Implemented by the Zamboanga Rubber Estates Corporation (ZRECI/ZNAC earlier this year came out in media were included in the documents sent to our office by COA for verification. | am furnishing the Commission with @ copy of my memorandum submited to my principal in the hope of clarifying the circumstances leading to Senator Envile's signing the fetter of 21 March 2032, a5 well as correcting the wrong Information that! have previously submitted tothe Commission, while L understand that the COA Special Audit Report has now been made public am stil Hoping that, nthe interest of transparency and to correct the information contained in sald report, the Commission will take Into consideration these errata that | am nov. hereby submitting “Thankyou very muchREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Sonate OFFICE OF SENATOR JUAN PONCE ENRILE, CERTIFICATION ‘This is to certify that MS, RUBY TUAZON has not been and never been employed as 2 Stator a Consultant inthe Ofc of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile as: 1) regular Senator from Iuly 1, 2004 to November 18, 2008, and from June §, 2013 t0 July 22, 2023; 2) Senate President fom November 19, 2008 to June 5, 2013; 3) Senate Minority Leader from July 22, 2023 up to the present; Or in the Commission on Appointment in his capacity as: 14) Member from August 2004 to November 2008; '5) Chaitman from November 2008 to June 5, 20235, 6) Minority Leader from July 33, 2013 up tothe present This certification is being issued today, 1 October 2013, for whatever legal purpose it an. . ATTY. caROLE a. puulfoxatcs Chief of att