TO:

Atty. Philip John Pojas

FROM:
RE:

Adonis C. Orilla
Ombudsmans investigation into the alleged travel perks granted by Sen. Manny

Pacquiao to PNP Chief Director General Ronald Dela Rosa

DATE: 11/18/2016
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether or not the Ombudsman should conduct an investigation into the alleged travel
perks granted to Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Ronald Bato dela
Rosa by no less than Senator Manny Pacquiao so he could watch the bout of the
boxing
champion
and
senator
in
Las
Vegas.

SHORT ANSWER

Yes. Ombudsman should conduct an investigation into the alleged travel perks granted
to Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Ronald Bato dela Rosa by no
less than Senator Manny Pacquiao so he could watch the bout of the boxing champion
and senator in Las Vegas. It is for the OMDUDSMAN to investigate, file a case (or not).
But it is for the citizenry to be alert for transgressions of the law by the public servants.
Dela Rosa is a public servant. He works for the citizenry. Therefore, he is accountable to
all
of
us.

FACTS
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has ordered a fact-finding investigation into the
alleged travel perks granted to Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General
Ronald Bato dela Rosa so he could watch the bout of boxing champion and Senator
Manny Pacquiao in Las Vegas. This was confirmed by Atty. Mary Rawnsle Lopez, acting
director of the Ombudsman Public Information and Media Relations Bureau.
The Office of the Ombudsman is investigating Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief
Ronald Dela Rosa over his recent all-expense paid trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, courtesy

of Sen. Manny Pacquiao. According to Atty. Mary Rawngle, the Ombudsman is

conducting a fact-finding investigation regarding the alleged travel perks received by the
PNP chief when he went to Las Vegas. Dela Rosa watched Pacquiao's fight against
American boxer Jessie Vargas at the Thomas & Mack Center on November 6 2016.
dela Rosa admitted in his interviews that it was the boxing champ and senator, Manny
Pacquiao paid for all his travel expenses.
Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees prohibits public officials and employees from accepting "any gift, gratuity,
favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course
of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any
transaction which may be affected by, the functions of their office."
The Ombudsman will look into dela Rosas possible criminal and administrative
liabilities for the acceptance of gifts, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection
with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the
functions of their office.

DISCUSSION
For me, General Bato clearly broke Presidential Decree No. 46, which punishes public
officials for receiving gifts on any occasion, as well as Republic Act No. 6713, or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Under
section 7 (d) of RA 6713 (Solicitation or acceptance of gifts), Public officials and
employees shall not solicitor accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their
official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office. As a matter of fact, he pretty
much incriminated himself by his public statements.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one especially if you are a public or government
official. If Gen. Ronald Dela Rosa was not the PNP Chief, will Pacquiao even offer him
this free vacation for him and his family including the free tickets to the fight? It is quite
glaring that the reason why he was given this gift by Pacman was because of his
position whether there is in exchange for a favor or not. However, the investigation
should also apply to SOJ Aguirre and all other government officials that were given the
same gifts.
This is the law and the law is harsh and it should apply to everyone. Taking the case of
PNP Chief, citizens are asking why the Ombudsman singled out PNP Chief dela Rosa

compared to those other Public Officials who were given free ticket and trips by Pacman
during PNoys Administration. It is because that, it was the PNP Chief himself confirmed
that it was a gift to him and his family by Pacman. As a Public servant whether its freely
given or without intention, there is a law against receiving gifts. And also it is not a
question because both Pacquiao and Dela Rosa came from the same status of life. In
the case at bar, its not about public funds. As the Ombudsman declared, it's about the
impropriety of a government employee like dela Rosa accepting gifts from anybody.
That, PNP Chief Dela Rosa accepted a significant value from a senator makes it even
worse. Obviously, he doesn't seem to understand why it is inappropriate -- gifts can be
construed as bribes and put you in a potential predicament. For example, if ever Mr.
Pacquiao needs to be investigated by the PNP, it will be very difficult for the Filipinos to
believe that you are impartial to him. Bato is too ignorant to the law that it's illegal for
any government official to accept gifts or any of monetary value EVEN from legal
businesses. If Bato thinks this is acceptable, how can he prevent corruption in the rank
and
file?
CONCLUSION
The law was penned to deter bribery, corruption, promotion of self serving interests, and
a host of other ills brought about by bribes disguised as gifts or donations and
perpetuated by people in positions of power or influence who expect such gifts in
exchange for a favorable outcome for the donor at sometime in the present or in the
future. The law may even include gifts which serve as some form of payment for favors
rendered in the past.
If this was a grey area for Bato and if he really has any decency, then he would have
consulted the law BEFORE accepting the gift! But then again, he already admitted, all
he cared about was it was "FREE"!
Laws also at some point must be interpreted if it is in a grey area. That is the job of the
courts and the last say is the Supreme Court that is their job, to interpret the law.
Looking at it literally is wrong, taking words in their usual or most basic sense without
metaphor or allegory or parable, analogy, metaphor, symbol, emblem and representing
the exact words of the original text. That is why legal battles arise because of this. Like
for example Marcos to be rested @ LNMB, is a legal battle that must be interpreted and
look the law upheld his dying request even how ugly it is.

TO: Atty. Philp John Pojas

FROM: Adonis C. Orilla
RE: Should Former President Ferdinand Marcos be buried
DATE: November 24, 2016
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether or not Former President Ferdinand Marcos should be buried at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani
SHORT ANSWER

The AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) has very clear regulations regarding this
issue. The Armed Forces Regulation 161-375not a lawissued in 2000 tells us who
may be buried in the Libingan. But this is a broad enumeration that includes former
presidents, government dignitaries, former AFP chiefs of staff and generals, World War
II veterans, and other AFP personnel. I believe based on these regulations, he is
qualified.
FACTS
Following President Rodrigo Dutertes confirmation that he will allow the burial of the
former president Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB), the
Presidents confirmation has become the hot topic among colleagues, students and the
ordinary Filipino citizens. President Rodrigo Duterte said Marcos should be buried at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani not only because he is a former president but also a former
soldier.
An argument from individuals who favor the burial of the late president in the Libingan
ng mga Bayani is that he is qualified simply because he is a soldier and as a former
President. The LNMB is a national cemetery established as a fitting resting place for
military personnel as well as Filipino heroes and martyrs.

Twenty-seven years after his death, and twenty-three years after his remains were flown
in to the Philippines from Guam, Ferdinand Marcos will finally be buried at the Libingan

ng mga Bayani. Voting 9-5 with one inhibition, the Supreme Court junked seven
consolidated petitions, led by Bayan Muna Representative Satur Ocampo, that sought
to block the Duterte administration's move to allow the burial of the late strongman at
the heroes' cemetery. The high court said the petitions had no merit.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), meantime, pointed out the following
arguments in support of government's move to allow Marcos' burial at the Libingan:
Marcos was, in life, a President, Commander-in-Chief, retired military veteran
and Medal of Valor awardee, and thus, may be interred at the Libingan pursuant
to [Armed Forces of the Philippines] Regulations G 161-375;

Marcos, prior to his death, possessed none of the disqualifications from being
interred at the Libingan, as stated in AFP Regulations G 161-375;

the recognition and reparation of human rights violations victims under Republic
Act No. 10368 (An Act Providing for Preparation and Recognition of Victims of
Human Rights Violations During the Marcos Regime) would not be impaired by
the interment of former President Marcos at the Libingan;

the interment of Marcos' remains at the Libingan is not contrary to public policy;
the interment of Marcos' remains at the Libingan does not contravene the
principles and policies enshrined in the 1987 Constitution;
the interment of Marcos' remains at the Libingan does not violate the Philippines'
obligations under International Law and norms; and

the President is not bound by the alleged 1993 Agreement between former
President Fidel V. Ramos and the Marcos family to have the remains of former
President Marcos interred at Batac, Ilocos Norte.

DISCUSSION

Being a former President alone qualifies Marcos to be buried. However, there are
parties that questioned this qualification and raised the moral value of deciding to allow
a former dictator to be considered an honorable hero. To trace back our history, in
1972, Marcos placed the whole country under Martial Law which lasted for almost a
decade during which thousands fell victims to abuse of political power that led to
violation of human rights, rampant corruption and death of civilians.
As of 2015, around 75,000 claims of human rights violations during the Marcos
presidency are still being processed by the government to provide compensation for
victims of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and abuse.
Also, another issue pointed out by several experts is the questionable validity of
distinctions and activities by Marcos during the Second World War.
However, the Dutertes Administration told that Presidents decision to allow Marcos
burial at the Libingan is a valid exercise of his prerogative power under the Constitution
and the Administrative Code. It is pointless to argue this regulation since the President
may change it anytime. The regulation does not even say how to choose among the
thousands
it
qualifies
for
burial
in
the
Libingan.
As a citizen of this country, I have my personal views why Marcos should not be buried
at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Firstly, Republic Act No. 289 provides the main reason
for the national pantheon as provided in its Section 1 which states that, to perpetuate
the memory of all the Presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots
for the inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generation still
unborn. This means that LNMB is reserved for those whom the nation honors for their
service to the country. But, in the case of Marcos as a former President and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, he is not automatically qualified for there is
also a disqualification clause that says that any personnel, who dishonorably reverted
and discharged from the service or who were convicted by final judgment involving
moral turpitude will be unentitled to be interred in the national pantheon. Marcos would
hardly consider a hero worth emulating and an inspiration to the Filipinos and to the
next generation. This is in consideration with the very intent of the law and the historical
facts of what had transpired during Martial Law. Also, the way the late president and his
first family were ousted out of Malacanang through People Power Revolution, Marcos
would hardly be considered as hero that is worth emulating and an inspiration to the
Filipinos.
Secondly, Martial Law remains one of the darkest episodes in Philippine history. Record
shows that there were 3,257 victims of extra-judicial killings, 35,000 tortured, and
70,000 incarcerated under Marcos dictatorship. Republic Act No. 10368 was passed by

Philippine Congress as recognition for the heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who
were victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime. Hence, a heros burial
for the former dictator is an insult to the thousands of martial law victims.
Thirdly, having Marcos buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani would mean rewriting our
history. This requires revisiting all history textbooks and to glorify former President
Marcos and describe the Martial Law as a non violent, peaceful, and successful period
in Philippine history. Well, Filipinos are known to be most forgiving people a character
that will always allow thieves, liars, scalawags and rascals to take advantage. But, it
does not mean we should stay ignorant and be nave in allowing our history to be
rewritten for some personal vested interests. Thus, a heros burial for the former dictator
is a shameless attempt to rewrite history.
CONCLUSION
Declaring Marcos as a hero would serve well not only the personal but also the political
interest of his family. It will definitely justify them from their past crimes. That will also lift
the burden to Mrs. Marcos for hiding her extravagance.
The name alone of Libingan ng mga BAYANI speaks for itself. BAYANI, what does it
mean? Does it mean scoundrels, rogues, and dictators? Being a mere president in this
country does not make one a hero automatically. The nagging question is: "Is Marcos a
hero?"For me, he is not by any measure. Not even by a nit. These are
not concoctions based on my personal views as an anti Marcos but as a concern
Filipino Citizen who values the importance of our history and the suffering of the victims
under the Marcos Regime.