1

Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City


TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA, INC.,
represented by EVELYN L. KILAYKO
and TERESITA D. BALTAZAR.
Complainant,





VERSUS


PRESIDENT BENIGO SIMEON C.
AQUINO III.
Case No. _________

FOR: CulpableViolation of
Section25(5), Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution,
Bribery, Graft and
Corruption, and Other
High Crimes
Respondent.
x ----------------------------------------------------------- x



COMPLAINT TO IMPEACH
PRESIDENT AQUINO


We, Evelyn L. Kilayko, Filipino, of legal age, married, andTeresita D.
Baltazar, Filipino, of legal age, married, after being duly sworn in accordance
with law, jointly depose and state that:

1. ComplainantTanggulangDemokrasya, Inc.(“TanDem”) is a non-
stock and non-profit corporation formed, organized and existing under the laws
of the Republic of the Philippines, with SEC Registration No. CN201205942,
created for the primary purpose of defending democracy, comprised of citizens
of the Philippines as members, and with principal office at c/o Rm. 303, State
Condominium 1, Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City,
Philippines.TanDem is represented herein by its Chairman, Evelyn L. Kilayko,
jointly with its President,Teresita D. Baltazar.

2. Respondent Benigno Simeon C. Aquino IIIis the incumbent
President of the Republic of the Philippines(“President Aquino”) who
assumed office on 30 J une 2010. He was proclaimed elected by Congress after
the first automated elections for president held on 04 May 2010. He may be
served with summons and other legal processes at the Office of the President,
Malacanang Palace, Manila, Philippines.

2
3. TanDem has authorized the filing of this Complaint to Impeach
President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, for culpable violation of Section
25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, and
other high crimes, pursuant to Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. A
copy of the Secretary’s Certificate dated __ July 2014, authorizing the filing of
the complaint and delegating corporate authority to the undersigned, is attached
as Annex “A”.

4. The substantive constitutional provision for the impeachment of the
president, pursuant to which this Complaint is filed, providesas follows:

“The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” 1987
Constitution, Article XI Accountability of Public Officers, Section 2.


FIRST GROUND


I. President Aquino culpably violated the constitutional prohibition against
the transfer of appropriations, by approving and implementing the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) because:(1) the funds
transferred were not savings; (2) the funds were transferred to items not
covered by existing appropriations; and (3) the transfers were prohibited
cross-border transfers.Section 25(5), Article VI, 1987 Constitution.Araullo, et
al, v. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014.


5.The constitutional prohibition against the transfer of appropriations
provides as follows:

“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief J ustice of the Supreme Court, and
the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law,be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective
offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”
1987 Constitution, Article VI Legislative Department, Section 25(5).

6. Thus, as a general rule, the Constitution prohibits the transfer of
appropriations made under the general appropriations law.

7. As an exception to the general rule, the Constitution allows the law to
authorize the transfer of appropriations, provided that the funds transferred are
“savings generated from the appropriations”, the “purpose of the transfer is to
3
augment an item in the general appropriations law”, and the transfer is within
the respective offices of the President including the entire executive branch, the
Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court and the constitutional
commissions.
1


8. During the period from October 2011 through September 2013,
President Aquino personally and directly approved, authorized, directed and
ordered the establishment and implementation of a Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP) that pooled public funds from various appropriations, and
applied the funds to uses other than those for which such funds were
appropriated by law.

9. For this purpose, President Aquino personally and directly approved
the following executive memoranda:
(a)Memorandum for the President dated October 12, 2011 (FY 2011
Proposed Disbursement Acceleration Program (Projects and Sources of
Funds);
(b)Memorandum for the President dated December 12, 2011 (Omnibus
Authority to Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and its Realignment);
(c)Memorandum for the President dated J une 25, 2012 (Omnibus
Authority to Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and their Realignment);
(d)Memorandum for the President dated September 4, 2012 (Release of
funds for other priority projects and expenditures of the Government);
(e)MemorandumforthePresidentdatedDecember19,2012 (Proposed
Priority Projects and Expenditures of the Government);
(f)Memorandum for the President dated May 20, 2013 (Omnibus
Authority to Consolidate Savings/Unutilized Balances and their Realignment to
Fund the Quarterly Disbursement Acceleration Program); and
(g)Memorandum for the President dated September 25, 2013 (Funding
for the Task Force Pablo Rehabilitation Plan).
2


10. Meanwhile on 18 J uly 2012, Secretary Florencio B. Abad of the
Department of Budget and Management, acting in his capacity as alter ego of
President Aquino, issued National Budget Circular No. 541 directing the
“Withdrawal of Agencies’ Unobligated Allotments as of J une 30, 2012.”
3


11. “Taken together, all the issuances showed how the DAP was to be
implemented and funded, that is — (1) by declaring “savings” coming from the
various departments and agencies derived from pooling unobligated allotments
and withdrawing unreleased appropriations; (2) releasing unprogrammed
funds; and (3) applying the “savings” and unprogrammed funds to augment
existing PAPs or to support other priority PAPs.”
4


12. As fate sealed it, “(on) September 25, 2013, Sen.

1
Araullo, et al, v. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014, pages 55-56.
2
Id, pages 36-43.
3
Id, pages 43-47.
4
Id, page 47.
4
J inggoyEjercitoEstrada delivered a privilege speech in the Senate of the
Philippines to reveal that some Senators, including himself, had been allotted
an additional P50 Million each as “incentive” for voting in favor of the
impeachment of Chief J ustice Renato C. Corona.”
5


13. “Responding to Sen. Estrada’s revelation, Secretary Florencio Abad
of the DBM issued a public statement entitled Abad: Releases to Senators Part
of Spending Acceleration Program, explaining that the funds released to the
Senators had been part of the DAP, a program designed by the DBM to ramp
up spending to accelerate economic expansion.”
6


14. “The revelation of Sen. Estrada and the reactions of Sec. Abad and
the DBM brought the DAP to the consciousness of the Nation for the first time,
and made (pork barrel) controversy inevitable.”
7


15. Thereafter, “(nine) petitions assailing the constitutionality of the
DAP and the issuances relating to the DAP were filed (with the Supreme
Court) within days of each other…”
8


16. On 01 J uly 2014, the Supreme Court in the case of Araullo v.
Aquino
9
ruled that the DAP violated the constitutional prohibition against the
transfer of appropriations,as follows:

(a) “There were no savings from which funds could be sourced for the
DAP”
10
; “savings could be generated only upon the purpose of the
appropriation being fulfilled, or upon the need for the appropriation being no
longer existent”
11
; unreleased appropriations were NOT savings because such
appropriations had not even reached the agency concerned vis-à-vis the
programs, activities and projects for which Congress allocated them
12
;
unobligated allotments were NOT savings, unless the purpose of the
appropriation was already fulfilled, or the need for the appropriation was no
longer existent;


5
Id, page 6.
6
Id.
7
Id, page 7.
8
Id, page 8.
9
G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014, pages 90-91.
10
Id, page 57.
11
Id, page 59. Under the GAAs for 2011, 2012 and 2013, “(savings) refer to portions or
balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or
encumbrance which are: (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or
abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the appropriation is
authorized; (ii) from appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation and
related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of absence without pay; and (iii)
from appropriations balances realized from the implementation of measures resulting
in improved systems and efficiencies and thus enabled agencies to meet and deliver the
required or planned targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser
cost.”
12
Id, page 60.
5
(b) The funds “pooled under the DAP were allocated to PAPs (programs,
activities, projects) that were not covered by any appropriations in the pertinent
GAAs;”
13
in other words, the transfers of funds were NOT for the purpose of
augmenting any existing item in the general appropriations law;

(c) Substantial funds pooled under the DAP from offices under executive
branch, were transferred to the House of Representatives, the Commission on
Audit and the Commission on Elections;
14
in other words, the transfers of funds
were NOT confined within the office of the President.

17. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in Araullo v. Aquino
15
declared as
unconstitutional the essential provisions of the DAPestablished and
implemented by President Aquino, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the
petitions for certiorari and prohibition; and DECLARES the following
acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program,
National Budget Circular No. 541 and related executive issuances
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being in violation of Section 25(5), Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers,
namely:

“(a) The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the
implementing agencies, and the declaration of the withdrawn unobligated
allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior to the end of
the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of
savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts;

“(b) The cross-border transfers of the savings of the Executive to
augment the appropriations of other offices outside the Executive; and

“(c) The funding of projects, activities and programs that were
not covered by any appropriation in the General Appropriations Act.

“The Court further DECLARES VOID the use of
unprogrammed funds despite the absence of a certification by the
National Treasurer that the revenue collections exceeded the revenue
targets for non-compliance with the conditions provided in the relevant
General Appropriations Acts.

“SO ORDERED.”

18. Under the premises, it is manifest that President Aquino culpably
violated the constitutional prohibition against the transfer of appropriations, by
approving and implementing the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)

13
Id, page 69.
14
Id, pages 73-75.
15
G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014, pages 90-91.
6
because: (1) the funds transferred were not savings; (2) the funds were
transferred to items not covered by existing appropriations; and (3) the
transfers were prohibited cross-border transfers.

19. President Aquino may NOT invoke the “doctrine of operative fact”
16

to exculpate himself from liability, because the doctrine which provides for the
prospective effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality,is premised on equity
and fair play.
17
The doctrine is applied ONLY if the retroactive nullification of
the effects of the unconstitutional act will result in inequity and
injustice.
18
Thus, the doctrine does NOT protect those who committed the
unconstitutional act.
19
Rather, the doctrine protects ONLY those who in good
faith relied on the unconstitutional act.
20


20. President Aquino may NOT invoke Section 39, Book VI of the
Administrative Code of 1987
21
to justify the DAP because:

(a) The cited provision is only about the execution by the President of
the budget approved by Congress; the said provision does not authorize the
President to approve a budget separate from that of Congress;

(b) The cited provision speaks only of “savings” to cover “deficits”; as
held in Araullo
22
, DAP did not use savings
23
, nor did DAP cover deficits
24
;DAP

16
“An unconstitutional act confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection.
An unconstitutional act is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The exception to this
rule is the doctrine of operative fact. Under this doctrine, the law or administrative issuance
is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law or administrative
issuance, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and
fair play.” Araullo, et al, v. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014, J. Carpio,
Separate Opinion, page 25.
17
Id.
18
Araullo, et al, v. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014, J. Brion, Separate Opinion,
page 55.
19
Supra Araullo, J. Carpio, page 25.
20
Supra Araullo, J. Brion, page 56.
21
Administrative Code of 1987, Book VI National Government Budgeting, Chapter 5
Budget Execution, Section 39.“Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover
Deficits. - Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in
the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and
projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be
used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations: provided, that the
creation of new positions or increase of salaries shall not be allowed to be funded from
budgetary savings except when specifically authorized by law: provided, further, that
whenever authorized positions are transferred from one program or project to another within
the same department, office or agency, the corresponding amounts appropriated for personal
services are also deemed transferred, without, however increasing the total outlay for
personal services of the department, office or agency concerned.”

22
Araullo, et al, v. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014.
23
Id, Page 57.
24
Id, Page 63.
7
instead transferred unreleased appropriations and unobligated allotments, to
programs, activities and projects not covered by any appropriation enacted by
Congress;

(c) The cited provision authorizing the President to transfer savings to
cover deficits should be construed in a manner consistent with Section 25(5),
Article VI, 1987 Constitution that prohibits “cross-border” transfers, because in
the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution prevails over statutes such as the
Administrative Code of 1987;
25
otherwise, if the cited provision were strained
and construed to purport to authorize “cross-border” transfers, then the said
provision would be unconstitutional.

21. Apart from the constitutional prohibition against the transfer of
appropriations, the statutory laws also impose criminal liability for the illegal
use of public funds,as follows:
“Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who
shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any
public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated
by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum
misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or
embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case,
the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
disqualification.
“If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted,
the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.”
Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, Article 220, 08 December 1930.
22. Notably, felonies under the Revised Penal Code are committed either
with deliberate intent or with voluntary negligence.
26
Criminal intent is
automatically presumed from the mere commission of the criminal act.
27
It is
for the accused to rebut the presumption of criminal intent.
28
The motive or

25
Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 7. “Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and
their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the
contrary.
“When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be
void and the latter shall govern.
“Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are
not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.”
26
Revised Penal Code, Art. 3. “Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
“Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).
“There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.”
Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review, Antonio L. Gregorio, 1983 Sixth Edition, page 13.
27
Id, page 14.
28
Id.
8
reason behind the commission of the criminal act is not by itself an element of
the crime.
29


23. Thus, by applying public funds under his administration to other
public uses different from those provided by law, President Aquino is presumed
to have the criminal intent to cause injury to the intended beneficiaries of the
appropriations made by Congress.


SECOND GROUND


II. President Aquino, using “pork barrel” funds sourced from DAP
30
and
PDAF
31
, bribed and corrupted one hundred eighty-eight (188)
Congressmen and nineteen (19) Senators, to secure the impeachment and
conviction of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Privilege Speech of Senator
JinggoyEstrada on 25 September 2013.
32
Privilege Speech of Senator Bong
Revilla on 20 January 2014.
33



24. On 12 December 2011, a caucus of the majority bloc of Congressmen
allied with President Aquino was called at the House of Representatives.
34
A
draft complaint containing eight (8) articles for the impeachment of Chief
J ustice Renato C. Corona of the Supreme Court,was presented during the
caucus.
35


25. The caucus ended with one hundred eighty-eight (188) out of the two
hundred eighty-five (285) Congressmen, signing the impeachment complaint
against the Chief J ustice.
36
As only one-third of the entire membership of the
House of Representatives, or 95 votes,was required for impeachment, the Chief
J ustice was impeached right there and then.
37



29
Id, page 15.
30
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is a form of Presidential “pork barrel”. The
essential provisions of the DAP were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in
Araullo, et al, v. Aquino, et al, G.R. No. 209287, 01 July 2014.
31
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) is a form of Congressional “pork barrel”.
The PDAF was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Belgica, et al, v. Ochoa,
et al, G.R. No. 208566, 19 November 2013.
32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOpdYuAjMQ&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANeWtJFMgfE&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B57r_aw3rWQ&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FudlGQRNLJQ&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7tQLfRp18&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XfGO8mEQwE&feature=youtu.be.
33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HCRsvedd0w&feature=youtu.be
34
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Renato_Corona>
35
Id.
36
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renato_Corona>
37
Id.
9
26. On 13 December 2011, or immediately on the following day,
Congress transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial.
38
On
16 J anuary 2012, the Senate commenced the trial of the impeachment
complaint.
39


27. On 29 May 2012, with only two-thirds majority or sixteen (16) votes
required to convict, the Senate impeachment court by a vote of twenty (20)
against three (3),found Chief J ustice Corona guilty of the Second Article
involving the failure to disclose certain properties in his Statement of Assets
and Liabilities and Net Worth.
40


28. Meanwhile, Congressman Tobias Tiangco of NavotasCity, left the
majority bloc in protest of the “railroading” of the Corona impeachment.
41
He
said that during themajority caucus at the House last December 12, Speaker
Feliciano Belmonte J r. gave lawmakers only two choices: sign or not sign the
resolution impeaching the Chief J ustice.
42
The Speaker did not give the
Congressmen the chance to question the resolution and read and assess the
pieces of evidence against the Chief J ustice.
43
No questions were entertained.
44

29. Congressman Tiangco also bared the intimidation and undue
influence exerted by President Aquino, acting through his alter ego Secretary
Florencio B. Abad of the Department of Budget and Management, to impound
or otherwise withhold the release of allotments under the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) intended to fund projects identified by
congressmen.
45
This was because of his refusal to support the impeachment of
the Chief J ustice.
46


30. On the other hand, Senator J oseph Victor Ejercito disclosed that
when he was still a Congressman of San J uan, the government of President
Aquino released to him P10 million pesos of public funds, as his reward for
supporting the impeachment of the Chief J ustice.
47
The funds were sourced
from the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of President Aquino.
48


31. If each one of the one hundred eighty-eight (188) Congressmen
received P10 millions pesos of pork barrel funds, that would be equivalent to
P1.88 billion pesos disbursed through the DAP of President Aquino.

38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/19526/rep--tiangco-leaves-house-majority-bloc-after-
railroading-of-corona-impeachment
42
Id.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/160229/tiangco-bares-pressure-by-aquino-allies-in-
impeachment-of-corona
46
Id.
47
http://www.mb.com.ph/p10m-for-solons-who-voted-to-oust-corona/
48
Id.
10

32. On 25 September 2013, more than a year after the conviction of the
Chief J ustice, Sen. J inggoyEstrada delivered a privilege speech revealing that
nineteen (19) out of the twenty (20) senators who voted for the conviction of
Corona, were promised and did in fact receive financial “incentives” in the
amount of at least 50 millionpesoseach of public funds, by and from President
Aquino who facilitated the “pork barrel” releases through his alter ego
Secretary Florencio B. Abad of the Department of Budget and Management.
49


33. On 20 J anuary 2014, likewise in a privilege speech, Sen. Bong
Revilla further revealed that President Aquino invited and met him at the
latter’s official residence at BahayPangarap in the Malacanang Complex, to
personally and directly ask for the conviction of the Chief J ustice, while the
trial was still pending. President Aquino was with Secretary Abad of the DBM
and Secretary Mar Roxas of the Department of Interior and Local Government
during the meeting.
50


34. Meanwhile, in response to calls by the general public for the
disclosure of information about the new and little known DAP of President
Aquino, Secretary Abad released to mass media the additional pork barrel fund
releases to Senator-J udges.
51
The disclosure included releases made during the
period from August 2012 through J anuary 2013, given to the nineteen (19)
Senators who voted to convict Corona, as follows
52
:


Name of
Senator-Judge
Amount of Pork
Barrel Funds
Source of Pork
Barrel Funds
Period of Release
1. Angara,
Edgardo
P50 million DAP October 2012
2.Cayetano, Alan
Peter
P50 million DAP October 2012
3.Cayetano, Pia P50 million DAP J anuary 2013
4.Drilon,
Franklin
P100 million DAP December 2012
5.Enrile, J uan P92 million DAP December 2012

49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOpdYuAjMQ&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANeWtJFMgfE&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B57r_aw3rWQ&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FudlGQRNLJQ&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7tQLfRp18&feature=youtu.be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XfGO8mEQwE&feature=youtu.be.
50
See PNoy admits meeting other senators aside from Revilla: re Corona, GMA News, 21
January 2014, <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/344827/news/nation/pnoy-admits-
meeting-other-senators-aside-from-revilla-re-corona>
51
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/497105/abad-releases-names-of-20-senators-who-got-
additional-pork-barrel
52
Id.

11
Ponce
6.Escudero,
Francis
P99 million DAP August 2012
7.Estrada,
J inggoy
P50 million DAP October 2012
8.Guingona,
Teofisto III
P35 million
P9 million
DAP October 2012
December 2012
9.Honasan,
Gregorio
P50 million DAP August 2012
10.Lapid, Lito P50 million DAP October 2012
11.Legarda,
Loren
P50 million DAP October 2012
12.Osmeña,
Serge
P50 million DAP December 2012

13.Pangilinan,
Francis
P30 million DAP October 2012
14.Pimentel,
Aquilino III

P25.5 million
P5 million
P15 million
DAP October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
15.Recto, Ralph P23 million
P27million
DAP October 2012
December 2012
16.Revilla,
Ramon J r.
P50 million DAP October 2012
17.Sotto, Vicente
III
P11 million
P39 million
DAP October 2012
November 2012
18.Trillanes,
Antonio IV
P50 million DAP October 2012
19.Villar, Manuel P50 million DAP October 2012
TOTAL P1.0605 billion
*DAP: Disbursement Acceleration Program of President Aquino.

35. Under the premises, it is evident that President Aquino, using “pork
barrel” funds sourced from DAP and PDAF, bribed and corrupted one hundred
eighty-eight (188) Congressmen and nineteen (19) Senators, to secure the
impeachment and conviction of Chief J ustice Renato C. Corona.


PRAYER


Wherefore, we respectfully pray:

(a) That a Member of the House of Representatives endorse this
Complaint, and that thereafter, the House of Representatives initiate
impeachment proceedings against President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, for
culpable violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, bribery,
graft and corruption, and other high crimes, in accordance with the provisions
12
of Section 3, Article XI on Accountability of Public Officers of the 1987
Constitution; and

(b)That after impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by
the Senate, President Aquino be convicted of the foregoing charges, removed
from office and disqualified to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines.




Evelyn L. Kilayko
Complainant-Affiant

Teresita D. Baltazar
Complainant-Affiant
TIN: 110-714-417 TIN: 106-938-235





























VERIFICATION


13
We, Evelyn L. Kilayko, and Teresita D. Baltazar, Filipinos, of legal
age, married, residents of Metro Manila, Philippines, under oath, depose and
say:
1. That we are the Chairman and President respectively of party
complainant TanggulangDemokrasya (TanDem), Inc.;

2. That as Chairman and President respectively of party complainant,
we have been authorized jointly to cause the filing and prosecution of
acomplaint for impeachment against President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino
III based on the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution, and pursuant
to said authority we caused the preparation of the present complaint;
Secretary’s Certificate dated __ July 2014, Annex “A”;

3. That as Chairman and President respectively of party plaintiff, we
have read the contents thereof and the allegations therein are of our own
personal knowledge or based on authentic records.




Evelyn L. Kilayko Teresita D. Baltazar
Affiant Affiant


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me at _______________on
_____________, affiants exhibiting their TIN as follows:

Evelyn L. Kilayko TIN: 110-714-417
Teresita D. Baltazar TIN: 106-938-235




Doc. No. ____:
Page No. ____:
Book No. ____:
Series of _____