De lima v aguirre complaint (revised) v3

Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City

LEILA M. DE LIMA,

Complainant, OMB-C-C-17-__________________ For: Commission of Acts Penalized under Art. 208 (Negligence in Prosecution and Toleration of Criminal Offenses), Art. 286 (Grave Coercion), Art. 172.2 (Use of Falsified Documents), Art. 184 (Offering False Testimony), Art. 239 (Usurpation of Legislative Powers) of the Revised Penal Code, and Sec. 3 (j), RA 3019.

-versus-

OMB-C-A-17-__________________ For: Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II, Secretary, Department of Justice, Respondent.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

COMPLAINT COMPLAINANT, LEILA MAGISTRADO DE LIMA, to this Honorable Office, hereby files the instant criminal and administrative complaint against Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II of the Department of Justice, and respectfully avers: STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. This is a criminal complaint against the respondent, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ), VITALIANO NAPENAS AGUIRRE II, for the commission of acts penalized under Art. 208 (Negligence in Prosecution and Toleration of Criminal Offenses), Art. 286

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

(Grave Coercion), Art. 172.2 (Use of Falsified Documents), Art. 184 (Offering False Testimony), Art. 239 (Usurpation of Legislative Powers) of the Revised Penal Code, and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 (AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act).

2. This is also an administrative complaint against respondent for the commission of acts constituting Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, pursuant to Sec. 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree) and Sec. 46, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987).

THE PARTIES 3. Complainant, LEILA MAGISTRADO DE LIMA, is a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at the Senate of the Philippines, Jose W. Diokno Blvd., Pasay City, Metro Manila, where she may be served with the Orders, Notices, and other processes of this Honorable Office.

4. Respondent, VITALIANO NAPENAS AGUIRRE II, is the Secretary of the Department of Justice of the Republic of the Philippines, with office address at the Department of Justice, Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila, where he may be served with the Summons, Orders, Notices, and other processes of this Honorable Office.

SUMMARY OF OFFENSES I RESPONDENT PROSECUTE

FAILED

MORE

TO

THAN

INVESTIGATE

7,000

AND WAR-

DRUG

RELATED EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS.

II RESPONDENT

FABRICATED CHARGES AGAINST

AND MALICIOUSLY PROSECUTED COMPLAINANT.

A. ON PUBLIC

NUMEROUS AND

RESPONDENT

OCCASIONS

MEMBERS MADE

OF

FALSE

BEFORE

THE

THE

MEDIA,

AND

HIGHLY

SLANDEROUS CRIMINAL IMPUTATIONS AGAINST

COMPLAINANT. 2

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

B. RESPONDENT

USED

THE

WHOLE

DOJ

MACHINERY TO ORCHESTRATE AND EXECUTE THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OF COMPLAINANT AS THE ALLEGED LEADER OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON

(NBP) DRUG LORDS, BASED ON THE TESTIMONIES OF CONVICTED DRUG LORDS, AS WELL AS THE COERCED STATEMENTS OF FORMER DOJ OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES. III RESPONDENT PROSECUTE

FAILED

PUBLIC

TO

OFFICIALS

IMMEDIATELY AND

PRIVATE

PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE JACK

IMMIGRATION

(BI)

LAM-BUREAU OF CORRUPTION SCANDAL,

THEREBY GIVING UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS TO BOTH THE BRIBERS AND RECEIVERS.

IV RESPONDENT RECKLESSLY THROWS ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING AND CONSPIRACIES BASED ON UNVERIFIED INFORMATION.

A. RESPONDENT FALSELY ACCUSED SENATORS OF CONSPIRING TO IMPLICATE HIM IN THE JACK LAMBI SCANDAL. B. RESPONDENT PAGCOR CHAIR

MALICIOUSLY

ACCUSED

ANDREA

DOMINGO OF ENTERTAINING A BRIBE OFFER FROM JACK LAM. C. RESPONDENT FALSELY ACCUSED LEGISLATORS AND OTHER PERSONALITIES OF CONSPIRING IN THE MAUTE INSURRECTION IN MARAWI CITY.

D. RESPONDENT FALSELY ACCUSED A SENATOR AND A CONGRESSWOMAN OF

FORMER BRIBERY

AND ATTEMPTED MURDER BASED ON A FAKE STORY FED TO HIM.

E. RESPONDENT

RECKLESSLY ACCUSED

KOREAN

EMBASSY OFFICIALS OF HAVING LINKS TO A SUPPOSED LOCAL KOREAN MAFIA IN THE KIDNAPSLAY OF KOREAN BUSINESSMAN JEE ICK-JOO. 3

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

F. RESPONDENT

RECKLESSLY

ACCUSED

COMPLAINANT OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

RESORTS WORLD FIRE. STATEMENT OF FACTS ON OFFENSES COMMITTED FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE MORE THAN 7,000 DRUG WAR-RELATED EJKS 5. Even before President Rodrigo Roa Duterte was sworn into office, cases of drug-related extra-judicial killings (EJKs) already started to rise as early as immediately after the May 2016 Elections.

5.1

As of April 2017, the Philippine National Police (PNP) itself admits that more than 7,000 deaths arising from the Duterte Administration’s so-called “war on drugs” have been recorded.1

5.2

According to the PNP, 2,555 suspected drug personalities were killed in police operations as of January 31, 2017, while 3,603 are considered “deaths under investigation”. “Deaths under investigation” is the PNPs euphemism for vigilante-style assassinations where the perpetrators remain unidentified and at-large.

5.3

For its part, Rappler recorded a total of 162 deaths as of April 23, 2017 since March 1, 2017, upon the resumption of the “war on drugs” after Duterte declared a month-long hiatus around February during the height of the expose’ on the killing by PNP officers of Korean national Jee Ick-Joo.2

5.4

Since this last Rappler update of the numbers of those killed in the drug war, drug-related killings continue to occur on a daily basis and remain unabated up to the present.

6. Sec. 3, Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987) provides that the Department of Justice, presently headed by respondent, is the government agency mandated to

1

Rappler, April 23, 2017, In Numbers: The Philippines’ ‘war on drugs’, http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/145814-numbers-statistics-philippines-war-drugs (Annex “A”).

2 Inquirer, January 19, 2017, Korean businessman killed inside SUV near PNP chief Bato’s office, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/863710/korean-businessman-killed-inside-car-near-pnp-chief-batos-office (Annex “B”).

4

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

“investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and correction system”.

6.1

Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 10071 (National Prosecution Service Act of 2010) provides that the prosecution service shall be under the control and supervision of the Office of the Secretary of Justice.

6.2

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10867 (National Bureau of Investigation [NBI] Modernization Act) provides that “the Secretary of Justice may direct the NBI to undertake the investigation of any crime when public interest so requires”.

6.3

Sec. 5 (b) and (c) of RA 10867 vests the NBI with primary jurisdiction in the investigation of EJKs of media personnel, activists, and judges.

By the very nature of this mandate of the NBI, it becomes imperative that EJKs of ordinary citizens committed by security forces or statesponsored vigilante groups should likewise be given priority by the Secretary of Justice as one of the public interest cases where he should direct the NBI to undertake an investigation.

7. Despite these clear mandates and the concomitant awesome powers vested in the Secretary of Justice to fulfill such mandate, herein respondent as Secretary of Justice and administrative supervisor of both the NPS and NBI has, up to the present, FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE A SINGLE CASE OF DRUG-RELATED EJK, whether classified as “killed in PNP operations” or as a “death under investigation”, aside from some of those presented during the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ hearings on EJKs. 7.1

There is reliable information coming from the DOJ that respondent himself has issued an illegal directive to the NPS that no public prosecutor is allowed to file a case against any law enforcement official enforcing the Administration’s “war on drugs”, including cases of possible summary executions of drug suspects during PNP anti-drug operations.

7.2

This is the reason why up to the present, and after more than 7,000 deaths, not a single case of PNP killing or “death under investigation” recorded by the PNP itself as drug-related killings, other than those cases exposed in the Senate EJK hearings, was ever investigated or prosecuted by the NBI and the NPS under respondent DOJ Secretary.

5

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

7.3

This omission of the respondent amounts to the felony of dereliction of duty penalized under Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code (Negligence in Prosecution and Toleration of Criminal Offenses), when he maliciously refuses to enforce the law against PNP officials and vigilante assassins on possible cases of EJKs committed during police operations and EJKs carried out as street executions by roaming death squads. Regardless, it is a clear case of graft and corruption under Sec. 3 (j) of RA 3019, by giving the unwarranted privilege of non-prosecution to PNP officers and vigilante assassins, at the expense of and in extreme prejudice to the rights of EJK victims and, basically, in utter disregard of law and justice.

7.4

This omission of the respondent likewise constitutes the administrative misfeasance of Gross Neglect of Duty, and Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, as well as the administrative malfeasance of grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

8. Instead of carrying out his mandate to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of EJKs in the country, respondent says that he does not consider EJK victims to be humans.

8.1

Commenting on the Amnesty International (AI) report that the spate of drug-related killings under the Duterte administration could constitute crimes against humanity, respondent said that the victims of such killings, whom he dubbed as “criminals”, do not constitute “humanity”: “Yung mga criminals, yung mga drug lords, drug pushers, they are not the humanity. Hindi sila ang humanity,” respondent told reporters in an interview. He added: “How can that be when your war is only against drug lords, drug addicts, drug pushers? You consider them humanity? No. I believe not”.3

8.2

Respondent has only shown and proven in his own words that he is neither willing nor able to uphold his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly the State’s commitment to value “the dignity of every human person”,4 to guarantee “full respect for human rights”5, to accord every person due process of law,6 and to

3

GMA, February 1, 2017, Aguirre on AI report: ‘Drug lords, addicts not part of humanity’, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/597886/news/nation/aguirre-on-ai-report-drug-lords-addicts-notpart-of-humanity-nbsp (Annex “C”).

4 Section 11, Article II, 1987 Constitution.

5 Ibid.

6 Section 1, Article III, 19987 Constitution.

6

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

respect the rights of the accused, including their right to life and their right to be presumed innocent.7 8.3

In any case, respondent’s statement only proves the intentional and malicious character of his negligence to prosecute perpetrators of EJKs, and instead tolerate the commission of EJKs, simply because he does not consider the victims of the killings as humans. He is therefore liable for the criminal offense penalized under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code (Negligence in Prosecution and Toleration of Criminal Offenses).

FABRICATION OF CHARGES AGAINST, AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OF, COMPLAINANT BY RESPONDENT AS DOJ SECRETARY On numerous occasions before the public and members of the media, Respondent made false and highly slanderous criminal imputations against Complainant.

9. Preparatory to and simultaneous with the Administration’s singleminded campaign to demolish the public persona of complainant as a public official, former chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights and Secretary of Justice, and as Senator, respondent as Secretary of Justice, and following the lead of his superior, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, carried out a public smear campaign against complainant.

10. On Sept. 22, 2016, it was reported: “Aguirre said he had received documents from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) showing bank transactions that could link De Lima to drug syndicates operating from New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City”.8 Respondent told the Inquirer that the AMLC submitted documents purporting to show illegal drug transactions between P500 million and P1 billion that may have ended in complainant’s bank accounts.9 11. Respondent said on Sept. 28, 2016 that he has a witness who can testify that complainant kept P300 million seized from high-profile inmates during the 2014 raid of the NBP. When asked where the purported

7

Section 14, Article III, 1997 Constitution.

Inquirer, September 23, 2016, Aguirre says De Lima has millions in banks, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/818149/aguirre-says-de-lima-has-millions-in-banks (Annex “D”).

9 Ibid.

8

7

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

undeclared funds ended up, respondent said: “Kay Secretary de Lima daw nga, doon dinala ng mga NBI.”10 12. Respondent claimed that between P12 to P15 billion of drug trade money was involved just in the last two years before the 2016 elections. “Nirequire magbenta ang mga drug lords... Ni-require ni Jaybee Sebastian magbenta yung mga mayors, mga bosyo ng drugs porke kinakailangang suportahan daw ang kandidatura ni Sen. Leila de Lima,” respondent said.11 He added that: “We don’t expect the bank deposits to be under the name of De Lima because she uses people to collect on her behalf. The amount is between P500 million [and] more than one billion pesos.”12 13. It is not farfetched that the sudden or untimely resignation of former AMLC Exec. Dir. Julia Bacay-Abad13 a month after President Duterte’s criticism of AMLC officials for allegedly being uncooperative,14 could have been due to pressures being exerted on Bacay-Abad and other AMLC officials to come up with something adverse to complainant.

14. On Oct. 17, 2016, respondent said: “The whole evidence points to De Lima accepting drug money tapos sasabihin nila there's no evidence against De Lima for accepting drug money.”15 On Oct. 21, 2016, respondent categorically declared that “[t]here is no other conclusion than the fact that De Lima is involved in illegal drugs.”16 15. Despite these reckless accusatory pronouncements, respondent, up to the present, has failed to present an iota of evidence showing AMLC records of bank transactions linking complainant to the so-called 500 million to one billion peso illegal drug transactions, or any other paper trail establishing complainant’s alleged drug links.

10

ABS-CBN, September 28, 2016, Aguirre: De Lima got 'missing' P300M from 2014 Bilibid raid, http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/28/16/aguirre-de-lima-got-missing-p300m-from-2014-bilibid-raid (Annex “E”).

11 CNN, October 6, 2016, Aguirre: De Lima's drug money 'dwarfs' pork barrel scam, http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/10/05/Aguirre-De-Lima-drug-money-pork-barrel-scam.html (Annex “F”).

12 See footnote no. 8 13 GMA, January 30, 2017, AMLC executive director resigns, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/597658/news/nation/amlc-executive-director-resigns (Annex “G”).

14 GMA, December 22, 2016, Duterte wants AMLC officials to resign because of corruption, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/593409/news/nation/duterte-wants-amlc-officials-to-resignbecause-of-corruption (Annex “H”).

15 politics.com, October 17, 2016, Walang paki! Aguirre to prosecute De lima even without Congress recommendation, http://politics.com.ph/walang-paki-aguirre-prosecute-de5-even-without-congressrecommendation/ (Annex “I”).

16 GMA, October 21, 2016, Aguirre vindicated by House findings pointing De Lima’s involvement in illegal drugs, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/585933/news/nation/aguirre-vindicated-by-house-findingspointing-de-lima-s-involvement-in-illegal-drugs (Annex “J”).

8

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

16. On Nov. 6, 2016, respondent called complainant the “common denominator” in the killing of a Cebu policeman who allegedly squealed on narco-generals; the fatal stabbing of alleged drug lord Tony Co inside New Bilibid Prison; and Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa’s shooting.

17. Respondent said: “Ang lahat ng ito ay parang may common denominator...

Ang protector at mga involved dito ay yung mga drug lords at protectors nito na pinangungunahan, ayon sa affidavit na ginawa ni Mayor Rolando Espinosa, si Sen. De Lima. xxx xxx xxx May affidavit si Mayor Rolando Espinosa; tinuro niya yung mga taong involved sa droga. Ang number one na enumerated niya ay si De Lima. Iisipin mo na although pulis o CIDG gumawa niyan, puwede din naman na talagang gamitin, nagpapagamit yang mga pulis na 'yan para patahimikin yung puwede mag-squeal sa kanila.”17 18. Despite these reckless pronouncements implicating complainant in the above-mentioned killings, respondent, up to the present, has failed to present any evidence to remotely substantiate complainant’s involvement in said killings. Proof of this is respondent’s patent failure to file any case against complainant for her alleged participation in these killings.

18.1 As DOJ Secretary, respondent cannot be allowed to recklessly throw around murder accusations against complainant, without any material basis whatsoever sufficient for the filing of a criminal complaint. The least the government needs is a DOJ Secretary with a penchant for engaging in trials by publicity.

19. On Feb. 25, 2017, respondent asked a crowd of President Duterte’s supporters in Rizal Park who they want to be jailed next. It was in apparent reference to complainant who was arrested on the basis of respondent’s trumped-up drug charges the day before.18 20. These acts of respondent constitute the administrative malfeasance of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Respondent used the whole DOJ machinery to orchestrate and execute the malicious prosecution of complainant as the alleged leader of 17

GMA, November 6, 2016, De Lima common denominator in Espinosa slay, other killings, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/587732/aguirre-de-lima-common-denominator-inespinosa-slay-other-killings/story/ (Annex “K”).

18 GMA, February 25, 2017, Aguirre to thousands of Duterte supporters: Sino gusto n’yo isunod?, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/601031/aguirre-to-thousands-of-duterte-supporters-sinogusto-n-yo-isunod/story/ (Annex “L”).

9

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

the New Bilibid Prison drug lords, based on the testimonies of convicted drug lords, as well as the coerced statements of former DOJ officials and employees.

21. Respondent, as DOJ Secretary, utilized all the resources of his Department, including that of its subordinate attached agencies such as the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), to orchestrate, coordinate, and implement a massive evidence-fabrication operation against complainant.

22. In August 2016, respondent forced and intimidated DOJ employees Jonathan Caranto and Edna “Bogs” Obuyes into admitting ownership of bank accounts that they supposedly held for complainant. He confronted them with BDO bank transaction slips that ultimately turned out to be fake. The two DOJ employees denied ownership of the bank accounts and refused to testify against complainant.

22.1 On Sept. 1, 2016, Obuyes posted on her Facebook account how she was dragged into respondent’s machinations against complainant.

She said that she was called by respondent under the impression that she was to renew her contract with the DOJ. However, Obuyes was surprised that respondent confronted her with deposit slips under the name “Bogs Obuyes”, which she said was impossible, as this was not her full name.

22.2 Respondent then coerced Obuyes to admit that she was holding the bank account for complainant. Obuyes also said she was coerced to testify against complainant, but refused to do so.19 This explanation of Obuyes is also contained in a ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay’, attached as ANNEX “N”.

22.3 For his part, Caranto personally visited the BDO branch where the account was opened to verify if such account exists. Upon verification by the bank, it was discovered that the bank accounts that respondent showed were not under the name of Caranto20 and likewise verified that Caranto did not have any account with the

19

Facebook post of Bogs Obuyes, September 1, 2016, https://web.facebook.com/bogs.obuyes/posts/1348558755184140?_rdr. (Annex “M”) 20 Inquirer, September 6, 2016, Questioned BDO account with P24M exists, name not De Lima’s ex-staff, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/813343/de-limas-ex-staff-confirms-bdo-account-not-under-his-name (Annex “O”).

10

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

bank. It was also discovered that one of the alleged transactions happened on a holiday, when the bank was closed.

22.4 These acts of respondent constitute Grave Coercion and Falsification of Private Documents as penalized under Article 286 and 172.2, respectively, of the Revised Penal Code. They also constitute the administrative malfeasance of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

23. Respondent encouraged and allowed the heads of his subordinate agencies in the persons of Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Chief Persida Acosta and Solicitor General Jose Calida to take part in his efforts at subornation of perjury by coercing or bribing witnesses to testify against complainant. He also allowed a private citizen in the person of Sandra Cam to illegally gain access to DOJ officials and personnel as well as convicted prisoners at the Bilibid and other persons for purposes of soliciting and coercing testimonies against complainant.

23.1 Jesusa “Susan” Francisco, a technical staffer of the DOJ, stated in a letter dated 11 October 2016 to Director Maria Charina Buena-Dy Po of the Technical Staff of the DOJ, that she was pressured, intimidated, and threatened by Sandra Cam, a close ally of President Rodrigo Duterte and dedicated character assassin of complainant, to testify against complainant as the supposed “bagman” of former DOJ Undersecretary Francisco Baraan III. 23.2 Francisco sought the help of PAO Chief Persida Acosta, who made it appear she was helping her by preparing several versions of her affidavit, but with the intent of using these against complainant.

Acosta also instructed Francisco that under no circumstances should she tell anyone that Sandra Cam was forcing her to be a witness against complainant. Francisco also revealed that Acosta as PAO Chief and supposed counsel of the Bilibid drug lords testifying against complainant personally brought groceries every month for said inmates-witnesses.

23.3 Francisco was no longer presented in the House inquiry on the Bilibid drug trade after standing by her position that she has nothing incriminatory to say against complainant, and after telling Sandra Cam that if she will be presented at the House inquiry, she will reveal Cam’s and Acosta’s efforts to threaten, coerce, and intimidate her into falsely testifying against complainant. Francisco’s letter is herein attached as ANNEX “P”.

11

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

23.4 At the time of the revival of drug trafficking charges against him by the DOJ in September, former Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) executive Col. Ferdinand Marcelino was approached by PAO Chief Persida Acosta, and was forcefully persuaded to testify against herein complainant at the House inquiry on the Bilibid drug trade. Acosta was repeatedly told by said intelligence official that he knows nothing of complainant’s alleged involvement in the Bilibid drug trade.

23.5 However, on May 18, 2017, Acosta announced that Marcelino was already willing to testify against complainant.21 The following day, on May 19, 2017, the DOJ dropped the drug-trafficking charges against Marcelino.22 23.6 The wife of Jaybee Sebastian, one of the Bilibid convict witnesses, texted a Congressman saying Sebastian was being pressured to testify against complainant. In her text, she said that Sebastian could no longer withstand the pressure being exerted upon him, and that in any case, complainant would understand if he is forced to testify against her, considering that she was innocent anyway.

23.7 This text was sent a few days before September 18, 2016, when eventually a supposed “prison riot” took place inside the secluded quarters of NBP Building 14 which housed the drug lord convicts, resulting in the almost fatal stabbing of Sebastian.23 After his recuperation and release from the hospital, Sebastian was immediately presented in the House inquiry to testify against complainant, along with two other convicts, Peter Co and Vicente Sy, who were similarly injured in the stabbing incident.24 23.8 Other witnesses against complainant, viz., former Acting BuCor Director Rafael Ragos, former DOJ security aides Ronnie Dayan and PSG personnel Joenel Sanchez, relayed to herein complainant their request for legal assistance, complaining of the pressure, threats and coercion they were receiving from Duterte Administration officials, including herein respondent. Before complainant can respond to 21

Update.ph, May 18, 2017, Marine official Marcelino willing to testify against De Lima, https://www.update.ph/2017/05/marine-official-marcelino-willing-to-testify-against-de-lima/17576 (Annex “Q”) 22 Philippine Star, May 19, 2017, Marcelino cleared, may testify vs Leila, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/05/19/1701457/marcelino-cleared-may-testify-vs-leila (Annex “R”) 23 Philippine Star, September 28, 2017, Bilibid riot: Jaybee Sebastian, 2 high-profile inmates hurt; 1 dead,http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/09/28/1628287/bilibid-riot-high-profile-inmates-hurt (Annex “S”) 24 ABS CBN, October 10, 2016, As Sebastian testifies, De Lima prays at CBCP event, http://news.abscbn.com/news/10/10/16/as-sebastian-testifies-de-lima-prays-at-cbcp-event (Annex “T”)

12

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

their requests, said individuals already agreed to testify against complainant to save their own skin and to stop further acts of threat, intimidation and coercion against them and their families.

23.9

Based on reliable sources, Bilibid convicts were similarly subjected to various forms of pressure and undue influence, such as promises of pardon, commutation of sentence, and other forms of executive clemency, not to mention the fact that these convicts are at the complete mercy of their jailers and other authorities, with their very lives or safety at risk if they do not cooperate.

23.10 This was clearly exhibited in the September 18, 2016 Building 14 stabbing incident (albeit officially dubbed as a “prison riot”), where Jaybee Sebastian, Peter Co, and Vicente Sy finally agreed to testify against complainant, but only after they were stabbed multiple times and hospitalized inside the supposedly highly-secured Building 14 inside Bilibid by respondent’s prison goons Clarence Dongail, Tomas Donina, and Edcar Singco.

23.11 These acts of coercing Francisco, Marcelino, Sebastian, Ragos, Dayan, Sanchez, and others to testify against complainant at the House inquiry -- as sanctioned by respondent when he allowed Cam, Acosta, and Calida access to his DOJ subordinates, to prisoners of the Bilibid prison under the BuCor where he exercises administrative supervisory powers, and to persons under custody for prosecution by the DOJ -- constitute the felony of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code.

24. In his affidavit dated October 9, 2016 annexed to the NBI Investigation Report, Jaybee Sebastian stated that Solicitor General Jose Calida was the first high official of the Administration who approached him to testify against complainant. In exchange, Calida promised to act on Sebastian’s request to be transferred back to the Maximum Security Compound of the NBP. In fact, during their conversation, Calida immediately called OIC Asuncion of the NBP on the phone and ordered him to transfer Sebastian back to the Maximum Security Compound of the NBP. 24.1 Sebastian was eventually operated on by, again, Sandra Cam, who, while not being a government official, was apparently being given access to most, if not all witnesses being prepared against herein complainant, and whose orders were being followed by NBP officials, insofar as giving privileges to, and granting requests of cooperative convicts was concerned. Sebastian’s affidavit is herein attached as ANNEX “U”.

13

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

24.2 This act of granting Sebastian’s request to be transferred to the Maximum Security Compound of the Bilibid in exchange for testifying against complainant constitute the offense punished under Sec. 3 (j) of RA 3019 for giving benefits and privileges to which Sebastian was not legally entitled.

25. Respondent acted as the prosecutor against complainant in the House inquiry on the Bilibid drug trade when he presented and conducted the direct examination of the Bilibid convict witnesses against complainant, even when a formal preliminary investigation was yet to be conducted by the DOJ against complainant.

25.1 It must be remembered that respondent as DOJ Secretary reviews all appeals on petition for review of decisions in preliminary investigation cases. Yet at the House inquiry, he was already presenting witnesses against complainant even before any DOJ preliminary investigation is conducted, in what can only be regarded as a clear case of pre-judgment by the DOJ Secretary whose agency, the DOJ, was to eventually file criminal charges against complainant based on the very same testimonies of criminal convicts presented by its Secretary at the House inquiry.

25.2 Some of the Bilibid criminal convict witnesses were in turn represented in the House inquiry by none other than the PAO Chief herself, Persida Acosta, supposedly as indigent clients qualified to avail of free PAO services, notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses were self-admitted drug lords awash in drug money.

Acosta was to eventually justify such action when asked by complainant at the Senate budget hearing for the DOJ, saying that the drug lords were already poor. Attached as ANNEX “V” is the TSN of the Senate hearing.

25.3 Such acts of respondent of knowingly using falsified testimonies against complainant in a legislative proceeding constitute the criminal offense of “Offering False Testimony in Evidence” penalized under Art. 184 of the Revised Penal Code, for which respondent should be held liable. His act of pre-empting the case against complainant by he himself presenting the witnesses against her even before any preliminary investigation appealable to him is conducted constitutes the administrative malfeasance of Grave Misconduct, Oppression, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

26. Respondent, using his power as DOJ Secretary and administrative supervisor of the BuCor, gave special prison privileges to the same 14

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

criminal convicts he used to testify against complainant at the House inquiry, in a clear case of graft and corruption penalized under Section 3 (j) of Republic Act No. 3019 of giving an unwarranted benefit or privilege to a person not legally entitled to said benefit or privilege.

26.1 A Bureau of Corrections official came out with an official memorandum on the special privileges being given to the NBP criminal convicts who testified against complainant. The memorandum arose from the BuCor official’s meeting with AFP personnel in charge of the AFP custodial center where the NBP criminal convicts were being held.

26.2 In said memorandum, the BuCor official categorically stated that said criminal convicts were given special prison privileges such as the use of gadgets, laptops, TVs, and air-conditioned rooms, per orders of respondent, in exchange for their testimonies against herein complainant. The BuCor Official’s memorandum is herein attached as ANNEX “W”.

26.3 This only attests to the fact that the Bilibid drug lord convicts utilized as witnesses by respondent, specifically some of the Bilibid 19 (Noel Martinez, Jojo Baligad, Herbert Colanggo, German Agojo, and Joel Capones) -- who all had axes to grind with complainant after she (as then Secretary of Justice) raided their “kubols”, isolated them from the rest of the prison population, and cut them off from the drug trade -- gave their fabricated testimonies in exchange for these prison privileges, aside from the fact that they wanted to get even with complainant.

27. In sum, respondent, aided in great part by his subordinate officials such as Solicitor General Jose Calida and PAO Chief Persida Acosta, as well as by shady and underworld characters such as Sandra Cam, led an evidence-manufacturing effort for the purpose of not only destroying complainant’s person and demolishing her reputation, but more importantly in order to be able to file bogus and fake non-bailable criminal charges against her, so that she may languish in jail, as she is already languishing at present, to fulfill the wishes of respondent’s boss, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.

FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY PROSECUTE PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE JACK LAM-BI CORRUPTION SCANDAL, THEREBY GIVING UNWARRANTED PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS TO BOTH THE BRIBERS AND RECEIVERS

15

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

28. Jack Lam (Lam Yin Lok) is Macau’s top gambling tycoon and operator of the Fontana Leisure Parks and Casino in Clark, Pampanga. On November 25, 2016, the Bureau of Immigration (BI) raided Fontana and arrested 1,300 Chinese nationals for illegally working in the country without any permits.

29. On November 26, 2016, the day immediately after the Fontana raid, respondent had a private meeting with Jack Lam and his power broker/fixer/middleman General Wenceslao “Wally” Sombero, Jr. at the Shangri-la Hotel in Bonifacio Global City, Taguig where admittedly, respondent was offered a bribe of 100 million pesos to protect Lam’s gambling interests and for the release of the 1,300 nationals arrested by the BI the day before.25 30. Respondent supposedly turned down the offer and left, but told his subordinate, Lex Talionis fraternity brother and then BI Associate Commissioner Al Argoniso to take care of the transaction. Argosino testified at the start of the Senate inquiry on the Jack Lam-BI Bribery Scandal that respondent told him, “Kayo nang bahala diyan,” before respondent left ahead of the others from his meeting with Sombero and Lam.26 31. Respondent admitted that as DOJ Secretary in charge of the prosecution of all criminal offenses in the entire country, including acts of graft and corruption, he did not file a case of direct bribery against Lam and Sombero, despite being categorically offered 100 million pesos in exchange for his protection of Lam’s gambling business.

32. After the aforesaid meeting, the following incidents happened: 32.1 Argosino and fellow Lex Talionis brother and then BI Associate Commissioner Michael Robles received 50 million pesos in bribe money from Sombero at the City of Dreams in Pasay City, on the very same day that respondent talked with Sombero about a 100 million-peso bribe, and where respondent instructed Argosino and Robles to take care of the transaction.

32.2 The money was eventually delivered the following night, November 27, 2016, at the house in Dasmarinas, Cavite of Philippine 25

Business World, January 24, 2017, Senators find holes in probe on alleged bribery by Jack Lam, http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Nation&title=senators-find-holes-in-probe-on-allegedbribery-by-jack-lam&id=139537 (Annex “X”) 26 Philippine Star, January 24, 2017, Senate eyes Aguirre link to Jack Lam bribery, http://www.philstar.com:8080/headlines/2017/01/24/1665610/senate-eyes-aguirre-link-jack-lam-bribery (Annex “Y”).

16

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) President Alfred Lim, another fraternity brother of respondent in the Lex Talionis fraternity, during a party.

32.3 Respondent texted Sombero, instructing him not to deal with then BI acting intelligence Chief Charles Calima.27 32.4 More than half of the 1,300 Chinese nationals previously arrested by the BI at the Fontana Leisure Park and Casino were allowed to escape.

32.5 Respondent allowed Sombero to leave the country for Singapore on January 16, 2017, despite the November 26, 2016 bribery attempt at the Shangri-la Hotel and the issuance of an Immigration Lookout Bulletin order (ILBO) covering Sombero.

32.6 Respondent rejected the need for a Senate inquiry on the BI-bribery scandal. During a press conference on Jan. 10, 2017, respondent said that other agencies are already looking into the matter. “There’s no need for the Senate inquiry. It’s beating a dead horse.”28 In short, respondent wanted a cover-up of the scandal.

33. Although charges against the personalities in this scandal were eventually filed by the NBI after the public expose’ and consequent Senate inquiry, respondent’s own failure to initiate the investigation and prosecution of this case if the scandal did not break out in public and the media makes him liable for the offense penalized under Article 208 (Negligence in Prosecution and Toleration of Criminal Offenses) of the Revised Penal Code and the criminal offense punished under Sec. 3 (j) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) of giving unwarranted privilege and benefits to parties not legally entitled thereto.

34. Given the choice and absent the public exposure of the scandal, and despite his own personal knowledge of the illegal acts already committed by his subordinates Argosino and Robles, Jack Lam, and Sombero, respondent actually had no intentions of investigating and prosecuting this case, because of the fact that it is his own subordinates acting under his instructions of “kayo na ang bahala dyan” who received the 50 millionpeso bribe money.

27

Ibid.

Manila Bulletin, January 10, 2017, Aguirre dismisses need for Senate probe on Jack Lam bribery, http://news.mb.com.ph/2017/01/10/aguirre-dismisses-need-for-senate-probe-on-jack-lam-bribery/ (Annex “Z”).

28

17

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

35. If not being directly involved in the bribery as being the principal recipient himself, respondent still committed the offenses aforementioned by giving his fraternity brothers the undue privilege of evading prosecution for bribery before the bribery incident broke out as a public scandal. He is also criminally liable for giving an undue privilege to Wally Sombero and Jack Lam when he admitted that he decided not to immediately arrest and prosecute them despite their attempted bribery of 100 million pesos at the Shangri-la Hotel, and for allowing Sombero to leave the country despite previously issuing an ILBO against him.

36. These criminal acts also constitute the administrative misfeasance of Gross Neglect of Duty, and Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, as well as the malfeasance of Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

RECKLESS IMPUTATION OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING AND CONSPIRACIES BASED ON UNVERIFIED INFORMATION

37. Respondent is in charge of fact-finding investigations in criminal actions, conducting preliminary investigation, filing criminal informations in court or criminal complaints with the Ombudsman, and the prosecution of criminal offenses. He therefore exercises quasi-judicial functions which demand objectivity and neutrality in cases where any investigation is yet to be conducted for the determination of the facts and identification of the offenders. Due care and circumspection is expected of him before he announces in the media or in public proceedings accusations of criminal wrong-doing against any person, especially pubic officials.

38. Despite this obligation, respondent recklessly throws around accusations of criminal wrong-doing against public officials and individuals without any factual basis whatsoever, thus jeopardizing the integrity, objectivity, and neutrality of his office. These acts constitute Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, pursuant to Sec. 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree) and Sec. 46, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987).

Respondent falsely accused Senators of conspiring to implicate him in the Jack Lam-BI Scandal.

18

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

39. In an interview with GMA News TV on Jan. 24, 2016, respondent claimed that herein complainant, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, and Senator Francis Pangilinan were planning to give former BI Associate Commissioners Al Argosino and Michael Robles legislative immunity in exchange for implicating him in the BI bribery scandal involving Jack Lam.29 40. Respondent said: “As a matter of fact, may plano ang grupong ‘yan na offeran ng immunity either or both of them si Commissioner Argosino and Mike Robles para lamang daw ako ay idiin at ako raw ay may kinalaman diyan.”

41. On Jan. 31, 2017, respondent appeared before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, during which Sen. Pangilinan demanded that the former apologize to him for accusing him of offering immunity to Argosino and Robles in exchange for implicating him in the bribery case. Respondent apologized, but refused to do the same for complainant and Sen. Trillanes, as he wishes to “verify” this information, despite the same circumstances for the apology to Pangilinan.

41.1 Respondent said during the Senate inquiry: “Mr. Chair, I have to verify again because of the three that I mentioned only Sen. Kiko Pangilinan denied his role. With respect to the other two, Senator De Lima and Senator Trillanes, could I be given time perhaps until next week to verify? Because it is a case of them being overheard discussing this matter of immunity giving to the two commissioners.”

41.2 Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Chair Dick Gordon said: “Let us keep to the topic. So she [De Lima] denied. Are you apologizing?”

41.3 Respondent said: “Yes, your honor and to Sen. Trillanes, if they did not do it, but somebody told me so it is a hearsay and it is very easy to…”

Respondent maliciously accused PAGCOR Chair Andrea Domingo of entertaining a bribe offer from Jack Lam. 42. Respondent also claimed that Jack Lam also attempted to bribe Philippine and Amusement Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR) Chair Andrea Domingo on December 1, 2016. He claimed that Lam offered a one 29

GMA, January 24, 2017, “Aguirre: De Lima, allies out to implicate me in BI bribery scandal.” http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/596851/news/nation/aguirre-de-lima-allies-out-to-implicate-mein-bi-bribery-scandal (Annex “AA”).

19

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

percent cut to Domingo in exchange for allowing his gambling operations to continue.30 43. Respondent said Domingo had told him about Lam’s attempt to bribe her to allow Fontana Leisure Parks and Casino at Clark to continue its online gaming operations while he was applying for a license. He said Domingo was offered a one percent cut of Lam’s casino earnings.

44. However, during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on Feb. 9, 2017, Domingo, while admitting meeting Lam in her office at PAGCOR, denied being offered by the gambling tycoon kickback from his gambling operations31.

Respondent falsely accused legislators and other personalities of conspiring in the Maute insurrection in Marawi City.

45. On Jun. 7, 2017, respondent tagged opposition lawmakers Senators Bam Aquino and Antonio Trillanes IV, and Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano, along with former political adviser Ronald Llamas in an alleged meeting with the Alontos and the Lucmans in Marawi just days before the Maute insurrection erupted in said city.32 Respondent asserted that this was proof of the participation of the opposition lawmakers and personalities to destabilize the government by organizing and financing the Maute insurrection in Marawi, together with the Alonto and Lucman clans. The proof for his allegation is a photo of the group that respondent showed to media.

46. As it turns out, the photo presented by respondent as so-called proof of this meeting was actually taken on Sept. 4, 2015, in Iloilo City.33 Respondent later claimed he was misquoted. He also apologized to Sen. Aquino, and the Alonto and Lucman clans. He said he was merely citing

30

Inquirer, December 1, 2016, Aguirre: Gambling lord also tried to bribe Pagcor chair, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/849560/aguirre-gambling-lord-also-tried-to-bribe-pagcor-chair (Annex “BB”).

31 Philippine Star, February 10, 2017, Pagcor chief denies bribe offer from Lam, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/02/10/1670729/pagcor-chief-denies-bribe-offer-lam (Annex “CC”).

32 Rappler, June 7, 2017, FACT-CHECK: Aguirre uses old photo to tag opposition lawmakers in Marawi crisis, http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/fact-check/172262-aguirre-aquino-trillanes-llamas-alejano-fact-checkmarawi-crisis (Annex “DD”).

33 Inquirer, June 9, 2017, Aguirre’s apologies, http://opinion.inquirer.net/104641/aguirres-apologies (Annex “EE”).

20

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

information relayed to him.34 He has yet to apologize to Trillanes, Alejano, and Llamas.35 47. The Justice and Court Reporters Association (JUCRA) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) disputed respondent, saying they simply quoted him verbatim and that there are video records to prove this. They also urged respondent to come clean and to stop making media his scapegoat.36 Respondent falsely accused a former Senator and a Congresswoman of bribery and attempted murder based on a fake story fed to him.

48. On Feb. 25, 2017, respondent ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to probe the supposed ambush on Lalaine MadrigalMartinez, the wife of Noel Martinez, a Bilibid drug lord and one of the witnesses against herein complainant in the House inquiry. According to respondent, Martinez was ambushed because she knew about the bribery attempt of a former Senator and Congresswoman on her husband. The bribe was allegedly offered to Martinez’s husband and the other drug lord witnesses for them to retract their testimonies against herein complainant.

49. According to respondent, Martinez is his informant in the alleged P100million bribery attempt by former Senator Jamby Madrigal and Laguna Rep. Marlyn Alonte on the Bilibid drug lords to retract their statements against herein complainant. Both Madrigal and Alonte denied respondent’s accusations.37 The police also refuted respondent’s claims, saying there was no report of an alleged attack or ambush on Martinez.38 Basically, the PNP itself refused to be a part of respondent’s fake story and simply said that no such ambush ever took place.

50. Respondent failed to further corroborate or prove his story with other proof other than his own assertions. Up to the present, nothing came out 34

Malaya, June 9, 2017, Aguirre standing by destab plot story, http://malaya.com.ph/businessnews/news/aguirre-standing-destab-plot-story (Annex “FF”).

35 Inquirer, June 9, 2017, We cry for Marawi, http://opinion.inquirer.net/104639/we-cry-for-marawi (Annex “GG”).

36 Philippine Star, June 8, 2017, Media groups dispute Aguirre's claim he was misquoted on 'Marawi meeting', http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/06/08/1708213/media-groups-dispute-aguirres-claim-he-wasmisquoted-marawi-meeting (Annex “HH”).

37 Inquirer, February 27, 2017, Solon tears up, denies Aguirre’s bribery allegation, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/875991/solon-tears-up-denies-aguirres-bribery-allegation (Annex “II”).

38 GMA, February 25, 2017, Aguirre orders probe on alleged ambush of Bilibid inmate's wife, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/601003/aguirre-orders-probe-on-alleged-ambush-ofbilibid-inmate-s-wife/story/ (Annex “JJ”).

21

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

of his fake story involving a fantastic tale about a senator and congresswoman bribing drug lords and ambushing the wife of one of the drug lords, for the simple reason that the ambush and bribery never took place and that the fake story was simply fed to respondent without him checking on any factual basis for said fake story.

Respondent recklessly accused Korean embassy officials of having links to a supposed local Korean Mafia in the kidnap-slay of Korean businessman Jee Ick-Joo.

51. Respondent’s penchant for fake news, fake stories, and political intrigues caused a national embarrassment when he accused South Korean embassy officials in the Philippines of having links to a so-called local Korean Mafia. Respondent made the accusation in light of the kidnapping and eventual killing by strangulation of Korean businessman Jee Ick-Joo by members of the PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Group inside Camp Crame, in an apparent attempt to blame the killing on a so-called Korean Mafia supposedly protected by Korean embassy officials, when the investigation was clear as day that Jee Ick-Joo was kidnapped and killed

by PNP officers inside Camp Crame.

52. On Feb. 23, 2017, the Korean Embassy protested respondent’s claim that its officials have ties to an alleged Korean mafia in relation to the kidnapslay of Korean businessman Jee Ick-Joo. The embassy statement read thus: “The Korean Embassy regrets very much that, based on wrong and unfounded information, Secretary Aguirre made some misleading statements involving so-called Korean mafia at the Senate hearing on Feb. 23, 2017. The Embassy is strongly distressed that this false information could tarnish its honor and reputation”.39 53. Foiled in his attempt to blame the killing of Jee Ick-Joo on the Korean Embassy, respondent went on to make another outlandish conspiracy theory on the killing, in an attempt to damage-control the biggest scandal to hit the administration’s “war on drugs” since the murder of Mayor Rolando Espinosa inside his jail cell by elements of the PNP-CIDG. 54. During the January 26, 2017 Senate hearing on the Jee Ick-Joo “Tokhangfor-Ransom” case before the Committee on Public Order and Dangerous

39

Inquirer, February 23, 2017, Korean Embassy denies Aguirre claim on Korean mafia ties, http://globalnation.inquirer.net/152834/korean-embassy-denies-aguirre-claim-korean-mafia-ties (Annex “KK”).

22

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

Drugs, respondent made the outlandish claim “that the killing of Jee [IckJoo] could be part of a destabilization plot against the administration.”40 Respondent recklessly accused complainant of being responsible for the Resorts World fire.

55. On June 20, 2017, a lone gunman attacked the Resorts World Casino and Hotel in Pasay City. The gunman set the casino on fire before shooting it out with pursuing security forces.41 56. Thereafter, respondent accused complainant before the public of being responsible for the fire started by the lone gunman. Respondent said that because of a legal opinion complainant issued on March 20, 2014 giving PEZA jurisdiction in the enforcement of fire safety regulations in PEZAregistered businesses, the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) was unable to enforce said regulations on the casino.42 57. Respondent recklessly imputed irregularities on complainant and her act of issuing the legal opinion, but without ascertaining first if the Resorts World Casino is a PEZA-registered business and therefore within the purview of said DOJ legal opinion. Insofar as complainant is concerned, casinos are not eligible for PEZA registration because they are not entitled to tax incentives under the PEZA Law. 58. Finally, without care for years of administrative regulation by the PEZA of the Fire Code and Building Code in Special Economic Zones by virtue of the mandate of the PEZA under RA 7916 or the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995, specifically Section 5, Rule XII of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, respondent declared PEZA without jurisdiction to enforce the Fire Code in PEZA-registered establishments.43 59. RA 7916 has been in operation as a law of the land since 1995. This includes PEZA’s performance of its mandate in enforcing fire safety and prevention regulations in Special Economic Zones in the past 22 years.

Respondent chose to single-handedly abrogate this law 22 years later without any amendatory law duly passed by Congress. This act makes 40

Philippine Star, January 27, 2017, DOJ chief smells destabilization in Jee’s slay, http://beta.philstar.com/headlines/2017/01/27/1665962/doj-chief-smells-destabilization-jees-slay (Annex “LL”).

41 Inquirer, June 2, 2017, Timeline: Resorts World Manila attack, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/902169/timeline-resorts-world-manila-attack (Annex “MM”) 42 ABS CBN, June 5, 2017, Aguirre drags De Lima into Resorts World Manila tragedy, http://news.abscbn.com/news/06/05/17/aguirre-drags-de-lima-into-resorts-world-manila-tragedy (Annex “NN”) 43 Inquirer, June 7, 2017, Aguirre reverses De Lima opinion; PEZA now powerless to implement fire laws, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/903466/aguirre-reverses-de-lima-opinion-peza-now-powerless-to-implementfire-laws (Annex “OO”)

23

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

respondent liable for Usurpation of Legislative Powers penalized under Art. 239 of the Revised Penal Code.

FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION 60. In addition to complainant’s own personal knowledge and information based on authentic records as well as authenticated statements of witnesses, there is a need for a further fact-finding investigation by this Honorable Office, through its Field Investigation Office (FIO), on the matters raised herein by complainant. This is especially true with regard the evidence-manufacturing operation for the fabrication of fake drug charges undertaken by respondent against the complainant, given the initial information already gathered and presented in this complaint.

61. Given the surrounding circumstances and condition of the coerced witnesses, including that of the Bilibid convicts’ most compromised environment where they are under the control and mercy of prison authorities and the respondent as supervising official of the BuCor, going to the bottom of the evidence-manufacturing charge is most challenging where witnesses are under duress and they continue to live under an atmosphere of fear. Hence, the need for an independent and extensive probe by this Honorable Office through its FIO. 62. For obvious and very apparent reasons, complainant cannot rely on the NBI to conduct such an investigation, said agency being the first to give credence to respondent’s purported evidence which he presented as Secretary of Justice at the House inquiry. This only highlights the irregularity of the acts taken by respondent, of pre-empting any independent and objective investigation that could have been undertaken by the NBI. Instead, respondent has left the NBI investigators with no choice but to uphold their own Secretary’s version of the facts, at the risk of incurring his disfavor, when he himself already concluded that complainant was guilty of wrongdoing, even before any of the evidence reached the NBI for the latter to conduct an objective investigation that is bereft of any undue political influence coming from respondent as the agency’s superior official.

63. At the same time, due to complainant’s present condition of incarceration at the PNP Custodial Center, she is unable to conduct an exhaustive factfinding investigation of her own for purposes of further corroborating the material averments in this complaint. Complainant has neither the capacity nor the resources to do more, other than initiate and establish the foundations for an in-depth inquiry that can only be undertaken by the independent agency that is granted such resources and mandate by law, this Honorable Office.

24

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

PRAYER WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing narration of respondent’s acts and omissions which constitute both criminal and administrative offenses, complainant prays that: 1. A fact-finding investigation and in-depth inquiry be conducted by the Honorable Office, through its Field Investigation Office, on the aboveenumerated charges against respondent, on top of the evidence and authenticated statements already provided by complainant in the instant complaint; 2. Respondent be adjudged GUILTY of the administrative charges for Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Oppression, Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, pursuant to Sec. 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree) and Sec. 46, Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code of 1987), and be meted the penalties of dismissal from the service and perpetual disqualification from public office; and 3. A preliminary investigation be conducted on the criminal charges for respondent’s commission of acts penalized under Art. 208 (Negligence in Prosecution and Toleration of Criminal Offenses), Art. 286 (Grave Coercion), Art. 184 (Offering False Testimony), Art. 172.2 (Use of Falsified Documents), Art. 239 (Usurpation of Legislative Powers) and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), after which criminal informations be filed against him before the Sandiganbayan or the proper courts, as the case may be.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 12 July 2017, Quezon City.

LEILA M. DE LIMA Complainant Senate of the Republic of the Philippines Jose W. Diokno Blvd., Pasay City Tel. No.: 807-8489 Email: leilamdelima.027@gmail.com 25

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

Copy furnished: VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II Department of Justice Padre Faura, Ermita Manila EXPLANATION ON SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL Service of the foregoing Complaint was effected on Respondent by registered mail due to distance and manpower constraints to effect personal service.

LEILA M. DE LIMA VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, LEILA M. DE LIMA, with office address at the Senate of the Philippines, Jose W. Diokno Blvd., Pasay City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that: 1. I am the Complainant in the instant criminal and administrative complaint against Secretary of Justice Vitaliano N. Aguirre II; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint; 3. I have read the contents thereof, and understood the same, and hereby declare that the statements made therein are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic records; 4. I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issue in the Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Office of the Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency; 6. If I should learn hereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts, tribunals, or agencies, I undertake to report such fact to this Honorable Office within five days therefrom.

26

DE LIMA V. AGUIRRE COMPLAINT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of July 2017 in Quezon City, Philippines.

LEILA M. DE LIMA Complainant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Quezon City this 12th day of July 2017, affiant exhibiting to me her Philippine Passport No. EC6183823, issued on 10 December 2015 by DFA Manila.

Doc. No. Page No. Book No. Series of 2017

27