IRR of EO 40 requires a valid joint venture agreement; COMELEC BAC ignored requirement.

The main issue on the eligibility of Mega Pacific Consortium can be settled by the applicability of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order No. 40.

The Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA, RA 9184) was approved as a law on January 10, 2003. It was published in newspapers of general circulation the following day and took effect fifteen (15) days after its publication. Thus, GPRA took effect on January 26, 2003.

Prior to the effectivity of the GPRA, Executive Order No. 40 which was signed by Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on October 8, 2001 consolidated the procurement rules and procedures for all national government agencies (NGAs), government-owned or –controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) and required the use of Government Electronic Procurement System (GEPS). The implementing rules and regulations of EO 40 was signed on February 8, 2002.

With the passage of RA 9184, certain procurement laws, including EO 40 were expressly repealed. However, the law did not specify which implementing rules will have to be followed in the meantime that the IRR of the GPRA has not yet taken effect. This is a legislative oversight that might just prove costly if the Supreme Court will rule later on that the penal liabilities of the persons involved cannot be determined in the absence of a valid IRR of the law governing the procurement.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the GPRA consist of two parts – Part I (IRR-A) covers all domestically-funded procurement activities and Part II (IRR-B) covers all foreign-funded procurement activities. IRR-A eventually took effect last October 8, 2003.

The “Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid” was issued by the BAC of COMELEC on January 28, 2003 or just two days after the effectivity of RA 9184.

Which implementing rules and regulations should the BAC follow?

This was the dilemma of most government offices at that time. They are to comply with the GPRA in their procurement activities but its IRR is not yet in place.

An interesting legal question also arises: Did the express repeal of EO 40 render its implementing rules ineffective?

Procurement is an ongoing activity of government. Its conduct cannot be hampered. Otherwise, major government services will suffer. This indispensable need for procurement in the day to day operations of government renders it unthinkable that Congress, in passing the GPRA into law, intended to halt government operations because of its oversight to provide which implementing rules and regulations will have to govern in the interim that the IRR of GPRA is still being crafted and until said IRR finally takes effect.

Eighteen government offices actually sought the opinion of the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) on the matter. As early as February 5, 2003 or nine (9) days prior to the release of COMELEC-BAC of the eligibility criteria, terms of reference and other pertinent documents to interested bidders, the GPPB already made a pronouncement that “the procedures embodied in E.O. 40 and its IRR shall still apply until the IRR of the GPRA shall have been finally approved.” (TSG NPM 002-2003)

Having established the applicability of the IRR of EO40, let us now consider the most important provisions that apply to the Mega Pacific Case.

Eligibility check is defined under said IRR as a “simplified form of pre-qualification based on non-discretionary pass/fail criteria.” Note the use of the word ‘non-discretionary.’ It means that the BAC has no discretion in the pre-qualification process. The BAC simply has to follow the “non-discretionary pass/fail criteria.”

Under Rule 16.7, the IRR provides, “The determination of eligibility shall be based on the submission of the following documents to the BAC, utilizing the forms prepared by the BAC and using the criteria stated in Section 16.2:
1. BAC certification of the official registration of the prospective bidder, referred to in Section 16.1.1 of these IRR.
2. Technical Documents:
a) Valid joint venture agreement, in case of a joint venture.”

This provision was, in fact, carried over to the IRR-A of RA 9184.

In ruling that there is no irregularity in the BAC decision finding Mega Pacific Consortium eligible for bidding, the Ombudsman relied on the dissenting opinion of Justice Tinga which reads,

“Nowhere in the RFP is it required that the members of the joint venture execute a single written agreement to prove the existence of a joint venture. Indeed, the intention to be jointly and severally liable may be evidenced not only by a single joint venture agreement but by supplementary documents executed by the parties signifying such intention.”

While it may not have been included in the Request for Proposal issued by the BAC, yet the bidding rules and regulations applicable at the time the COMELEC-BAC conducted the bidding specifically provided that part of the technical documents to be submitted for eligibility is a “valid joint venture agreement, in case of a joint venture.”

A valid joint venture agreement cannot but be a single document executed between and among the members of such joint venture.

We have established that the COMELEC-BAC did not follow the “non-discretionary ‘pass/fail’ criteria in evaluating the eligibility of the bidders. We have also shown that it totally disregarded the requirement for the submission of a valid joint venture agreement by any joint venture desiring to participate in the bid.

Why then, does this Government trumpet its efforts on reforming the bidding process if right at its inception, it will just be disregarded?

Why hail procurement reforms when the Ombudsman, who is supposed to be at the forefront of stamping out corruption and irregularities in government seems to be condoning the acts of COMELEC-BAC in disregarding these laws?

Can the Ombudsman Rule on Criminal Liability in the Preliminary Investigation?

The Ombudsman stated in its Supplemental Resolution:

“The issues to be resolved in this case may be stated as follows:

a) Should respondents BAC members be held criminally liable under Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019, for having declared MPC eligible and for allowing it to participate in the bid. Corollary thereto, will the same acts give rise to administrative liability for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service?

b) Should respondents COMELEC Commissioners be held liable for violation under section 3(e) of RA 3019, when it passed Resolution No. 6074 awarding Phase II contract to MPC, an entity which allegedly did not take part in the bidding and for executing the contract with MPeI an entity which the Supreme Court found to be ineligible?

c) Is the Phase II Contract between COMELEC and MPeI grossly disadvantageous to the government for which reason public and private respondents may be held accountable under Section 3(g) of RA 3019?

d) Finally, should private respondents be held liable for violating Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019 being the beneficiaries of the nullified Resolution and Contract for Phase II?”


Again, this is a manifest error on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman to be ruling on these issues when what was called for was a mere determination of probable cause.

As clarified by the Supreme Court, the task of the Office of the Ombudsman is to determine the existence of probable cause that will warrant the filing of an information. This information shall be filed with the proper judicial body, in this case the Sandiganbayan, which is the one tasked to determine the criminal liability of the accused.

The proper questions that should be answered by the Office of the Ombudsman must be:

a) Is there probable cause that the BAC members violated Sections 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019, for having declared MPC eligible and for allowing it to participate in the bid?
b) Is there probable cause that respondents COMELEC Commissioners violated Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019 in awarding the contract to MPC?
c) Is there probable cause that Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. violated Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 in entering into a contract with Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.?
d) Is there probable cause that private respondents have committed any offense under the Revised Penal Code or any other penal statute?

If the Office of the Ombudsman will rule on the issues it stated in the Supplemental Resolution, then it is arrogating upon itself the power and duty lodged with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, ruling on the criminal liability of the public and private respondents is beyond the powers granted to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Does absence of complainants in the clarificatory hearings affect determination of probable cause?

Non-appearance of complainants does not take away probable cause. Complainants are not even obliged to present evidence.

The resolution highlighted the non-appearance of the complainants during the public hearings and added that certain individuals “who were making statements before the mass media regarding alleged anomalies in the bidding and award of the Automated Counting and Canvassing Project were likewise invited as resource persons but none of them responded to th[e] panel’s invitation.”

Ombudsman Mercedita Gutierrez capitalized on the absence of complainants to justify the supplemental resolution. As reported in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (October 11), “We had 12 public hearings in the Comelec case. We called and invited all the complainants, witnesses and all others with interest in the case -- many from civil society groups, NGOs and others listed,” Gutierrez said in Filipino. “But the complainants didn’t actively participate and failed to submit their evidence in the 12 hearing days,”

This non-appearance of parties should not have, in any way, affected the resolution of the case. The complainants need not even present evidence as the Office of the Ombudsman can “motu proprio” or on its own, act on any complaint. In fact, the OMB can act even on an anonymous complaint provided there are sufficient leads given by the anonymous complainant. Sec. 3 of Ombudsman Adminstrative order No. 07 provides, “A complaint which does not disclose the identity of the complainant will be acted upon only if it merits appropriate consideration, or contains sufficient leads or particulars to enable the taking of further action.”

This power to investigate on its own is provided for in Article XI, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution
“The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.”

and reiterated in Sec. 15 of R.A. No. 6770, which reads:

“Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.”

Likewise, Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 07 As Amended or the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, Section 4.(f ) provides:

“If, after the filing of the requisite affidavits and their supporting evidences, there are facts material to the case which the investigating officer may need to be clarified on, he may conduct a clarificatory hearing during which the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross–examine the witness being questioned. Where the appearance of the parties or witnesses is impracticable, the clarificatory questioning may be conducted in writing, whereby the questions desired to be asked by the investigating officer or a party shall be reduced into writing and served on the witness concerned who shall be required to answer the same in writing and under oath.”

Thus, if the panel needed the testimonies of the persons they named in the resolution, they could have easily sent written questions to those individuals. It is well within their powers and the Office of the Ombudsman is given wide latitude in the conduct of investigation to gather every possible evidence to bolster the case against erring public officials.

The Ombudsman is an active investigator who should leave no stone unturned in search for evidence; it is not a court that relies on submissions of parties.

Determination of Probable Cause or Establishing Criminal Liability?

In its resolution, the panel, as approved by the Office of the Ombudsman stated that the clarificatory hearings and further investigation were conducted “in order to determine criminal liability of public and private respondents.”

This mistaken belief by the Office of the Ombudsman might have been caused by the wording of the Supreme Court directive in its decision in the Infotech case. The directive reads: “Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman which shall determine the criminal liability, if any, of the public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any) involved in the subject Resolution and Contract.”

In its Resolution dated June 15, 2006 which is also quoted in the Ombudsman Supplemental Resolution, the SC, however, clarified this by saying, “Our directive was for OMB to report on its “final determination of whether probable cause exists against any of the public officials (and conspiring private individuals, if any)…”

The job of the Ombudsman, then, is to conduct a preliminary investigation and to gather evidence preparatory to the filing of appropriate criminal or administrative cases with the proper court or the filing of an impeachment complaint if impeachable officials are involved.

“Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.” (Rule 112, Sec. 1, Rules of Court)

What is required in a preliminary investigation is to establish sufficient ground that will give rise to a belief, based on facts presented and gathered during the investigation, that the acts complained of is a criminal offense, and that the persons against whom the complaint is lodged are the ones who performed the acts.

It is not a mere belief that is required but a well-founded belief, meaning the belief must have a strong foundation to stand on. This foundation upon which such belief can be based are the facts gathered during the investigation, either as presented by the parties or as gathered by the investigator during their independent investigation.

A well-founded belief in the preliminary investigation, however, need not amount to belief in certainty of guilt. That certainty will be determined later when the criminal case is prosecuted in court. All that is required in a preliminary investigation is a belief with solid foundation that the respondents are probably guilty of the crime committed.

Yet, the Ombudsman, in its supplemental resolution wrote, “the finding of probable cause in a criminal case entails, as well, the determination of sufficient evidence to support a judgment of conviction if one will be filed.”

It is during the trial that the criminal liability of the offenders is determined, after all the available and relevant evidence are submitted to the court. This is also in consonance with the principle of ‘presumption of innocence’ that says, “Every person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”

In addition, the Ombudsman also reasoned out that “the mere claim that grave abuse was committed, standing alone is not sufficient to warrant a finding of probable cause” and that “the finding of probable cause must, in addition, be supported by a clear and convincing evidence of malice, bad faith, bribery, manifest impartiality, (sic) unwarranted benefit and undue advantage.”

This ratiocination of the Ombudsman finds no support in law or jurisprudence.
Erroneously, the Ombudsman is raising the bar for finding probable cause.

The Ombudsman Supplemental Resolution – A Tragedy of Errors

The Supplemental Resolution of the Ombudsman exonerating the COMELEC Commissioners and BAC members and the private individuals involved from any criminal and administrative liability is a resolution riddled with errors.

A careful evaluation of said resolution yielded the following very serious and disturbing errors:

1.In conducting the clarificatory hearings and carrying out further investigation, the investigating panel is mistaken in its stated objective “to determine criminal liability of public and private respondents.”

2.The Ombudsman is making an issue on the non-appearance of the complainants when it should not have, in any way, affected the determination of the existence of probable cause.

3.The Ombudsman ruled on matters that are supposed to be ruled upon by the Courts, specifically, the Sandiganbayan.

4.The Ombudsman totally disregarded the findings of the Supreme Court in the Infotech case. Instead, it came up with its own determination on matters that have already been passed upon by the Supreme Court.

5.The Ombudsman reversed the following SC conclusions in the Infotech case:

a.That Mega Pacific Consortium is not eligible to bid and must have been disqualified by the BAC outright.

b.That the bilateral agreements entered into by Mega Pacific eSolutions separately with SK C&C Co., Ltd., WeSolv Open Computing Inc., Election.com Ltd., and ePLDT do not point to any joint and several undertaking to constitute a joint venture arrangement among the parties.

c.That the machines flunked the technical evaluation on certain crucial criteria.

6.The Ombudsman relied heavily on evidence presented by the respondents during the public hearings conducted by the investigating panel, disregarding the results of the field investigation officer and the findings of the Supreme Court in the Infotech case.

7.The Ombudsman erred in holding that the BAC has discretion to rule on the eligibility of MPC and in relying on the principle that the courts should not interfere with such exercise of discretion.

8.The Supplemental Resolution misinterpreted Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 8436 as giving the COMELEC the power to disregard or allow certain deviations or deficiencies in weighing the demonstrable capacity of the bidders.

9.The Ombudsman completely reversed its initial determination of probable cause in its Resolution dated June 28, 2006 without any clear basis.

These errors call for rectification, but how do we hope for a rectification when the Office of the Ombudsman has shown manifest partiality to the cause of the respondents, acting as if it is defending instead of prosecuting the officials involved in this controversy?

There lies the tragedy - if "The Protector of the People" turns out as a defender of corruption.

Dates and Events Relevant to the Procurement of the Automated Counting Machines

The following relevant dates and events were culled from the following documents and linked sites:

1.Decision of the Supreme Court in G. R. No. 159139, Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines vs. COMELEC promulgated January 13, 2004;

2.Ombudsman Supplemental Resolution on OMB-L-C-04-0922, Kilosbayan Foundation and Bantay Katarungan Foundation vs. Benjamin Abalos, et. al. dated September 27, 2006; and

3.Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) Website.


These dates will aid in the analysis of the anomalies that attended the bidding process and the procurement of the automated counting machines.


June 7, 1995 – Congress passed Republic Act No. 8046, An act authorizing the Commission on Elections to conduct a nationwide demonstration of a computerized election system and pilot-test it in the March 1996 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and for other purposes.

December 22, 1997 – Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436, An act authorizing the Commission on Elections to use an automated election system in the May 11, 1998 national or local elections and in subsequent national and local electoral exercises, providing funds therefor and for other purposes. 

February 9, 1998 – COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2985, Deciding against full national implementation and limited the automation to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). 

May 1998 Elections – Automated election was conducted in the ARMM while the rest of the country was still on manual counting and canvassing of votes.

May 2001 – Elections
The counting and canvassing of votes for both national and local positions were also done manually, as no additional ACMs had been acquired for that electoral exercise allegedly because of time constraints.

October 8, 2001 – Executive Order No. 40 is signed.
Consolidating Procurement Rules and Procedures for All National Government Agencies, Government-Owned or –Controlled Corporations and Government Financial Institutions, and Requiring the Use of Government Electronic Procurement System

February 8, 2002 – Implementing Rules and Regulations of EO 40 is signed.

March 20, 2002 – IRR of EO 40 is released for circulation.

April 4, 2002 – IRR of EO 40 takes effect.

October 29, 2002 – Comelec adopted in its Resolution 02-0170 a modernization program for the 2004 elections.
It resolved to conduct biddings for the three (3) phases of its Automated Election System; namely, Phase I - Voter Registration and Validation System; Phase II - Automated Counting and Canvassing System; and Phase III - Electronic Transmission.

January 10, 2003 - Republic Act No. 9184 Republic Act No. 9184 Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA) is signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

January 24, 2003 – President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 172 Allocating the sum of P2.5 billion to fund the AES for the May 10, 2004 elections. Upon the request of Comelec, she authorized the release of an additional P500 million.

January 26, 2003 – Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA) takes effect

January 28, 2003 – COMELEC BAC issued an “Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid,” The Pre-Bid Conference was initially set on February 13, 2003 and the submission of applications for eligibility and bid envelopes was initially set on February 28, 2003.

February 5, 2003 – GPPB issued its opinion “that the procedures embodied in E.O. 40 and its IRR shall still apply until the IRR of the GPRA shall have been finally approved.”

February 11, 2003 – COMELEC Issued Resolution No. 5929 clarifying certain eligibility criteria for bidders.

February 14, 2003 – Eligibility criteria, Terms of Reference and other pertinent documents were released to interested bidders.

February 17, 2003 – COMELEC released the Request for Proposal (RFP)

February 18, 2003 – Pre-Bid Conference was held. Submission of bids was set on March 10, 2003.

February 27, 2003 – Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc. was incorporated.

March 10, 2003 – Deadline for submission of bids.
57 bidders participated. 55 were disqualified; Mega Pacific Consortium and Total Information Management Corporation were found eligible by the BAC.

April 8, 2003 – DOST informed COMELEC that because the results of the automated counting in some precincts did not tally with the manual count there was a need to undertake a retest.

April 11, 2003 – COMELEC advised DOST to perform verification test in order to reconfirm the ACM count by conducting the retest/recounting of every precinct that contain ballots with discrepancies.

April 14, 2003 – DOST submitted to COMELEC its report on the result of the technical evaluation as well as the verification tests of both the Automated Counting Machines of MPC and TIMC

April 15, 2003 – The Financial Bids of the 2 Eligible Bidders were opened.

April 15, 2003 – COMELEC came out with its en banc Resolution No. 6074, awarding the project to Mega Pacific Consortium

April 21, 2003 – BAC submits its recommendation to the Commissioners

May 26, 2003 – 3rd Meeting of the GPPB.
“The members unanimously agreed that Government agencies are justified in applying E.O. 40 in the absence of the IRR of R.A. 9184 that in cases where invitations for bids were issued after the effectivity of R.A. 9184 but before the effectivity of its IRR, procuring entities may continue adopting the procurement procedures, rules and regulations provided in E.O. 40 and its IRR, or other applicable laws.”

May 29, 2003 – Five individuals and entities (including Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines) wrote a letter to Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos, Sr. protesting the award of the Contract to MPC “due to glaring irregularities in the manner in which the bidding process had been conducted.”

May __, 2003 – Comelec entered into a Contract entitled “The Automated Counting and Canvassing Project Contract” with Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.

June 6, 2003 – Comelec Chairman, through Atty. Jaime Paz, rejected the protest and declared that the award “would stand up to the strictest scrutiny.”

June 30, 2003 – The Automated Counting and Canvassing Project Contract was notarized.

October 8, 2003 - The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9184 takes effect.

Protect the People; Defend the Republic

Weep you people of the Philippines!

How I wish that people are really weeping or else seething with rage over the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation on the election automation anomaly. I know this is wishful thinking, the spread of political awareness being inversely proportional to the spread of poverty.

And because I do not want to engage in wishful thinking, let me talk about realities highlighted by the Ombudsman’s resolution.

Rejoice, then, you people of the strong republic! Behold your strong republic rise despite the opposition’s noise.

Yes, a new republic is on the rise. A republic where the powerful people have full control of key democratic institutions. The strong republic is being realized, step by step, with methodical precision. All key institutions are yielding to the Palace, the seat of the strong republic.

The Garci scandal allowed us to see a COMELEC that serves the republic well. No impeachment complaint can ever prosper against its officials because Congress is vigilant to protect the interests of this strong republic. The fields are soaked in blood of those who dare go against the rulers. And the military and police need not lift a finger; extrajudicial killings are the work of subversives.

And now, we see an Ombudsman that works legal wonders to make sure that the people of the strong republic are protected against malicious prosecution by those who are besmirching the reputation and good name of its honorable leaders.

Let anyone who happen to go against the republic be dealt with in the harshest degree by applying the strong arm of the law. Let those who support the government and its powerful people get the juiciest government contracts. This is the guiding principle that rules in the hearts and minds of the people in this new republic. This is the bond that strengthens institutions and makes the whole government machinery work wonders for its people.

Why question then the Ombudsman’s supplemental resolution when it is in fact protecting GMA’s people and defending her strong republic?

So, are you complaining?

Pangalagaan ang Sambayanan! Ipagtanggol ang Republika!

Magluksa ka sambayanan!

Sana nga, nagluluksa ang bayan o di kaya’y nagpupuyos sa galit dahil sa resulta ng imbestigasyong isinagawa ng Ombudsman sa anomalyang kakabit sa modernisasyon ng halalan at pagbili ng mga 'automated counting machines'.. Ngunit alam kong ito’y pangangarap lamang dahil ang saklaw ng kamalayang politikal ay kasalunga ng saklaw ng kahirapan.

At dahil ayokong mangarap na lamang, hayaan ninyong ilahad ko ang mga katotohanang tinanglawan sa pagbaba ng kapasyahan ng Ombudsman.

Magbunyi kayo, mga mamamayan ng Republika! Pagmasdan n’yong tumatayog ang republika kahit pa nag-iingay ang oposisyon.

Tama, isang bagong republika ang sumisibol. Isang republikang ang makapangyarihang mamamayan ang siyang komokontrol sa mga institusyong demokratiko. Nabubuo na ang matatag na republika, paisa-isang hakbang, sa pamamaraang walang-mintis. Lahat ng mahahalagang institusyon ay sumusuporta sa Palasyo, ang sentro ng matatag ng republika.

Ipinakita sa atin ng iskandalo ni Garci ang COMELEC na maayos na naglilingkod sa republika. Walang reklamo ng pagpapatanggal sa mga opisyal ang uusad sa Kongreso dahil mataman nitong pinangangalagaan ang interes ng republika. Ang mga bukirin ay dinidilig ng dugo ng sinumang magtangkang sumuwag sa mga naghahari. At hindi kailangan ng pulis at militar na kumilos dahil lahat ng walang pakundangang pagpaslang ay kagagawan ng mga rebelde.

At ngayon, nakita natin ang Ombudsman, ang tagausig, na kayang gumawa ng mga kababalaghang legal upang pangalagaan ang mga mamamayan ng matatag na republika at maipagtanggol ang mga naghahari laban sa mapanirang pag-uusig ng mga taong nagnanais sirain ang puri, dangal at malinis na pangalan ng mga kagalang-galang na pinuno.

Ang sinumang sasalungat sa Republika ay kailangang panagutin sa ipinapataw na marahas na kaparusahan ng batas. Ibigay sa mga tumatangkilik sa republika ang pinakamalalaking kontrata ng pamahalaan. Ito ang prinsipyong umiiral sa puso at isip ng mga mamamayan nitong bagong republika. Ito ang nagbibigkis at nagpapatatag sa mga institusyon at nagsisigurong ang buong makinarya ng pamahalaan ay gumagana para sa mga mamamayan.

Kaya bakit pa magdududa sa kapasyahan ng Ombudsman samantalang pinapangalagaan lamang nito ang MGA tao ni GMA at ipinagtatanggol ang kanyang matatag na Republika?

O ano, papalag ka?

Protektahan an Namamanwaan; Depensahan an Republika

Magbangkay kamo, namamanwaan kan Pilipinas!

Sana ngani, nagbabangkay an mga tawo o kaya nagbabaga an anggot dahil sa ibinabang resolusyon kan Ombudsman manongod sa anomalya sa pagbakal kan mga ‘automated counting machines’. Alagad aram kong pangatorogan sana ini dahil an pagrarom nin kaaraman kan mga tawo sa politika kabaliktadan kan paglakop nin pagtios.

Asin dahil habo kong nangangaturugan sana, bayae na ihiras ko an mga katotohanan na nagliwanag sa pagbaba kan resolusyon kan Ombudsman.

Mag-ogma kamo, namamanwaan kan Republika! Hilinga nindo an pagbuswak kan republika dawa pa nagriribok an oposisyon.

Tama, sarong bagong republika an nagtatalubo. Sarong republikang an mga poderosong mamamanwaan iyo an nagkokontrol kan mga demokratikong institusyon. Nabibilog an pusog na republika, pasaro-sarong lakdang, sa paaging mayong paltos. Gabos na importanteng institusyon minauyon sa Palasyo, an sentro kan pusog na republika.

Ipinahiling sato kan iskandalo ni Garci an COMELEC na tultol na nagseserbisyo sa republika. Mayo nin reklamo para sa impeachment an nuarin man makakalusot sa Kongreso ta inaataman kaini an interes kan republika. An mga kabukidan dinudugdog nin dugo kan siisay man na magporbar na lumaban sa mga nakatukaw. Dai na kaipuhan pang magpagal ang pulis saka militar; an mga misteryosong garadanan gibo kan mga rebelde.

Sa ngonian, nahiling ta pa ang Ombudsman na kayang gumibo nin mga ngangalasan tangani na pangatamanan an mga namamanwaan kan pusog na republika asin surugon an mga naghahadi laban sa mga nakakaraot na balubagi asin prosekusyon kan mga tawong gustong raoton an dignidad asin maray na ngaran kan mga ginagalangan na mga lideres.

An siisay man na makontra sa Republika dapat panaguton sa pataw na padusa kan ley. Itao sa mga suportadores kan republika ang pinakadarakulang kontrata sa gobyerno. Ini an prinsipyong nagdadalagan sa puso asin isip kan mga namamanwaan sa bagong republika. Ini ang nagbubugkos asin nagpapapusog sa mga institusyon asin nagsisigurong an bilog na makinarya nin gobyerno nagtatrabaho para sa mga namamanwaan.

Kaya ano ta magduda sa resolusyon kan Ombudsman samantalang pinapangatamanan sana kaini an MGA tawo ni GMA asin dinedepensahan an saiyang pusog na Republika?

Malaban ka?