Republic of the Philippines)

Quezon City ) S.S.

SWORN STATEMENT

I, RENATO REYES, JR. Filipino, of legal age, with office address at Erithryna Bldg., 1
Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Quezon City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law
hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the same Renato Reyes, Jr. who is among the complainants in the impeachment
complaint (“Impeachment Complaint”) filed against the Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Navarro-
Gutierrez before the House of Representatives last August 3, 2010.

2. I affirm and reiterate our claim that the incumbent Ombudsman has miserably failed to
live up to the role of Ombudsman during the five years she has held the position. Far from the
zealous and impartial body envisioned in the Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman has
instead become synonymous with inaction, delay, partiality and corruption in favor of high-
ranking government officials. During the term of Ombudsman Gutierrez the filing of a complaint
on illegal acts involving then President Gloria Arroyo, the First Family or top officials of her
administration with the Office of the Ombudsman virtually carried with it a guarantee that the
complaint would not be acted upon in a just manner in violation of her duty under Art. XI of the
Constitution to “act promptly” on any complaint and investigate any act or omission of a public
official “which appears illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient”.

3. The Filipino people deserve an Ombudsman who performs her constitutional mandate to
protect them from grafters and corrupt public officials, not someone who condones – and in
essence protects – the very thieves in government that the Office was mandated to prosecute. Our
people expect those who wield the immense powers of the Office of the Ombudsman to spare no
effort in ensuring honesty and integrity in public service and to take positive action against graft
and corruption. We deserve no less.

4. We reiterate our accusation that Ombudsman Gutierrez is guilty of committing

impeachable acts of gross betrayal of the public trust and culpable violations of the Constitution.
She committed betrayal of public trust through her gross inexcusable delay, inaction, failure to
prosecute and worse, willful refusal to prosecute Usec. Jocelyn Bolante, Sec. Luis “Cito”
Lorenzo and others involved in the so-called Fertilizer Fund Scam despite the blatant anomalous
transactions revealed in Senate Committee Report No. 54 dated March 1, 2006, the Commission
on Audit’s “Report on the Audit of P728 Million GMA Farm Input Fund” dated March 29, 2006,
and the separate complaints for plunder filed by Atty. Francisco I. Chavez on May 26, 2004 and
the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) on June 11, 2004 which remain unacted by the
Ombudsman after six years.

5. The evidence of blatantly anomalous transactions were contained in Senate Report No.
54 where the Senate recommended, among other things, the filing of plunder and other criminal
and administrative charges against Usec. Jocelyn Bolante, Sec. Luis “Cito” Lorenzo, Usec.
Ibarra Poliquit, Usec. Belinda Gonzales, Asec. Jose Montes, and all DA Regional Directors who
participated in the illegal transactions for violating Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019.

6. It is bad enough that Ombudsman Gutierrez failed to act on the two pending complaints
filed as early as 2004 by Atty. Chavez and the KMP. What is worse is that the subsequent,
separate investigations by the Senate and the COA in March 1 and 29, 2006, respectively, were
also ignored by the Ombudsman. As of February 25, 2011, no case has been filed by the

1
Ombudsman against the two key players in the Fertilizer Fund Scam – Bolante and Lorenzo – as
certified by Atty. Renato Bocar, executive clerk of the Sandiganbayan.

7. This inordinate and deliberate delay, failure to prosecute and file plunder charges against
Bolante, Lorenzo, et. al. despite two pending complaints for plunder before respondent and
voluminous evidences provided her by the Senate and COA investigations manifest gross
inexcusable inaction or negligence and worse, willful refusal to prosecute. She clearly violated
her constitutional duty to promptly investigate complaints and betrayed the public trust.

8. Ombudsman Gutierrez also committed betrayal of public trust when she did not prosecute
Philippine National Police (PNP) Director Eliseo Dela Paz for violating Bangko Sentral Pilipinas
(BSP) Circular No. 98 s. 1995, as amended by BSP Circular No. 507 s. 2006 in relation to
Republic Act 7653 (New Central Bank Act), which prohibits the taking out of the country of
currency in excess of US$10,000 without declaring the same to the Philippine Customs.

9. Gen. de la Paz, who was the Comptroller of the Philippine National Police (PNP) at the
time, was held at the Moscow International Airport on 11 October 2008 after he was found
carrying 105,000 euros (P6.93M) in his carry-on baggage, which exceeded the 3,000-euro limit
for departing passengers. The incident was later dubbed the “Euro generals” incident and was
immediately investigated by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House Committee
on Public Order and Safety, the PNP, the National Police Commission, and the Office of the
Ombudsman.

10. In Senate Committee Report No. 229 dated November 13, 2008, the Senate stated in clear
and unequivocal terms its finding that the act or omission of Gen. de la Paz was a clear violation
of said BSP circulars and recommended the filing of criminal charges to the Office of the
Ombudsman.

11. In its own fact-finding report, the PNP Directorate for Intelligence and Detective
Management (DIDM) dated October 27, 2008 recommended the filing of charges against Gen.
de la Paz for disregarding said BSP Circulars in violation of Sec. 36 of Republic Act 7653 and
other illegal acts. Another PNP investigation report, this time by the PNP Criminal Investigation
and Detection Group (CIDG) dated November 3, 2008, established that Gen. de la Paz failed to
declare the currency he brought out of the country, with the Bureau of Customs even issuing a
certification to this effect, and recommended the same charges be filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman.

12. In fact, Gen, de la Paz was found by the above investigating bodies to have committed
other illegal acts in relation to his trip to Moscow with the other “euro generals” including
irregularities in the withdrawal of PNP funds,

13. Despite Gen. de la Paz’s admission before the Senate, and the subsequent investigation
reports by the Senate, the PNP-DIDM and PNP-CIDG all in the period October to November
2008 and all providing evidence of Gen. de la Paz’s violation of said BSP Circulars and
recommending that charges be filed by the Office of the Ombudsman for the same, Ombudsman
Gutierrez still refused to prosecute Gen. de la Paz. A certification dated February 28, 2011 by
Atty. Renato Bocar, executive clerk of the Sandiganbayan attests that no charges have been filed
against Gen. de la Paz more than two years after the incident.

13. In the face of an admission of guilt and clear evidence of Gen. de la Paz’s violation of the
law, the Ombudsman’s failure and worse, willful refusal to prosecute Gen. de la Paz constitutes a
Betrayal of Public Trust and a violation of her Constitutional duties.

14. Ombudsman Gutierrez also betrayed the public trust through her deliberate delay and
inaction, and later whitewashing of the case involving Commission on Elections Chairman
Benjamin Abalos Sr., Commissioner Resureccion Borra, and others involved in the illegal,

2
rigged bidding and awarding of the COMELEC’s automation election project to Mega Pacific,
Consortium.

15. The Supreme Court in its decision and resolution in the case of “Information Technology
Foundation of the Philippines et al vs. Commission on Elections et al (GR No. 159139, January
13, 2004)” voided Comelec Resolution No. 6074 dated April 15, 2003 and pointed out anomalies
in the transaction entered into by Comelec officials. In the same decision, the Supreme Court
ordered the Ombudsman to determine the criminal liability of the public officials and private
individuals involved. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, in its report dated December 12,
2005, came out with a similar conclusion finding several COMELEC officials and members of
Bids and Awards Committee liable for the illegal and nullified contract. Respondent
Ombudsman was appointed to position in December 1, 2005 and could not have been unaware of
the Senate Report.

16. Despite clear and unequivocal findings that illegal acts have been committed, the
Ombudsman never gave an iota of value to and totally disregarded the findings of the Supreme
Court and Senate. The unexplained lack of action prompted the Supreme Court to issue a
Resolution dated February 14, 2006 requiring the Ombudsman to show cause why it should not
be held in contempt of Court for its failure to fully comply with the Court’s directive. Still, the
Ombudsman did not act and even resisted the Court’s order, invoking its autonomy as an
independent body. This prompted the Court to issue another Resolution dated March 28, 2006
and again on May 3, 2006 ordering the Ombudsman, under pain of contempt, to report to the
Court on June 30, 2006 on her determination as to whether a probable cause exists against any
public official or private individual involved in the Mega Pacific contract.

17. Until the last minute, Ombudsman Guttierez refused to abide by the Court’s order,
invoking both its autonomy and the need for more time to investigate despite the fact that a year
and six months had already passed since the Supreme Court’s ruling nullifying the Mega Pacific
contract. When the Ombudsman finally came out with her Resolution on the investigations dated
June 28, 2006, she held only Borra liable and exonerated Abalos and a number of Comelec
officials involved in the irregularity, contrary to the findings and recommendations of both the
Supreme Court as well as the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

18. Worse, in a shocking turn of events three months later on September 27, 2006, the
Ombudsman reversed its June 28, 2006 resolution and issued a new resolution absolving Borra
and all respondents involved in the Mega Pacific anomaly of all administrative and criminal
liabilities "for lack of probable cause." The resolution also nullified the factual findings that
could have been used by the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings
against Borra.

19. Keeping in mind that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect, and that
probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt, the Ombudsman’s resolution absolving all parties involved in the rigged
bidding and other anomalies of the Mega Pacific contract came as a shock. While the
Ombudsman did not dispute the Supreme Court’s findings of anomalies in the COMELEC’s
automation project, in essence it came up with the illogical conclusion that nobody was
accountable for the said anomalies. This is nothing less than a whitewash.
20. The Ombudsman’s gross inexcusable delay and stubborn refusal to act on the Supreme
Court’s orders, and later her decision to wrongly exonerate Abalos, Borra and others involved in
the irregularities notwithstanding the fact that, hundreds of millions of pesos of public funds
have been lost in the transaction, indicate that Ombudsman Gutierrez committed a gross Betrayal
of Public Trust.

21. Though her repeated inexcusable delays in carrying out her duties, failure or willful
refusal to prosecute suspects, and deliberate whitewashing and cover-up of crimes involving
3
officials of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as manifested in the above paragraphs,
Ombudsman Gutierrez grossly violated Section 12 and Section 13, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Article
XI on which her Constitutional duty is enshrined, as well as Section 16, Article III of the
Constitution, which mandates prompt action and speedy disposition of cases.

22. Ombudsman Gutierrez miserably failed to live up to her constitutional mandate. She has
in numerous instances failed to act promptly, if at all, and has repeatedly invited suspicion of her
protecting those charged with wrongdoing, particularly former President Macapagal-Arroyo and
her associates – in blatant violation of constitutional role as an independent investigating and
prosecuting body.

I am executing this affidavit in support of the Impeachment Complaint and respectfully

reiterate our prayer for this Honorable Committee to impeach respondent Ombudsman Ma.
Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby set my hand this __ day of __________ 2011 in

Quezon City.

RENATO REYES, JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO personally before me, this ____ day of ____________
2011 in Quezon City, by the affiant.

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011