Ombudsman Morales has breached public trust


Ricardo Saludo

Upon careful review of the documents contained in the seven evidence packets [presented in the Disbursement Acceleration Program case], we conclude that the “savings” pooled under the DAP were allocated to PAPs [programs and projects]that were not covered by any appropriations in the pertinent GAAs [General Appropriations Acts, the national budget legislation].
— Supreme Court decision on the DAP, July 2014

WE are not amused, but we are not surprised. Ex-President Benigno Aquino III’s handpicked Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has predictably exonerated him and lightly charged his former budget secretary, Florencio Abad, for their P157-billion Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the biggest malversation in Philippine history.

According to the Revised Penal Code, Article 220, technical malversation is committed by “Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance.”

Put simply, anyone causing state funds to be spent for public use in ways not authorized by statute, commits technical malversation. It is punishable by “prision correccional in its minimum period [six months]or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied.”

(Plain malversation, which uses government money for personal use, is a graver crime warranting many years in prison and much heftier fines.)

The DAP malversation
Now, as the above-quoted Supreme Court decision on the DAP clearly stated, the program allocated funds to undertakings not in any of the General Appropriations Acts or national budget laws for the years in which the money was allotted.

In short, under the program, public funds went to expenditures not covered by any law.

This is the paramount offense committed in the Aquino-Abad DAP, not misdeclaring savings or transferring Executive Department funds to agencies outside it (more on those other offenses later).

DAP violated not just the Revised Penal Code by allotting funds in ways not authorized by law, but the Constitution itself, particularly Article VI, Section 29 (1): “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”

By allocating DAP funds to “PAPs that were not covered by any appropriations in the pertinent GAAs,” Aquino and Abad violated a rule that even the lowest-paid government employee knows: If there’s no budget for something — “walang badyet” — you can’t spend on it.

Now, two years and eight months after the Supreme Court ordered her to probe and charge DAP’s authors, Ombudsman Morales finds none liable for the offense cited by her former fellow magistrates: allocating DAP funds to unbudgeted expenditures.

Not Abad, who ordered some 1,900 DAP allocations drafted, and endorsed them for approval. Not Aquino, who, Abad himself said, approved every DAP allocation. If they didn’t author DAP, who did?

This Morales ruling must not be allowed to stand. Otherwise, anyone else who allocates public funds to expenditures not covered by any budget allocation, in clear violation of the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code, is off the hook.

Morales must be held accountable
The Supreme Court must call Ombudsman Morales to account, for the sake of basic budgetary discipline and integrity. And Congress should consider impeaching her for this clear breach of public trust in failing to perform her duty of prosecuting unlawful acts of public officials.

The Ramon Magsaysay Foundation and the Ateneo de Manila University should take back their awards to Morales. By favoring the man who appointed her, plus the architect of DAP malversation, she has rendered herself undeserving of the government service accolades bestowed by both institutions.

To make it seem that she complied with the Supreme Court directive, Morales charged Abad with usurping legislative power by wrongly declaring as savings the unobligated allotments of national agencies before the fiscal year had ended, in violation of GAA provisions defining savings.

That is just one of three DAP violations, as ruled by the Supreme Court, to wit:

“… the following acts and practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program, National Budget Circular No. 541 and related executive issuances [are declared]unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers, namely:

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

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

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

The case for impeachment
Those building a case for Morales’s impeachment would have no shortage of actions and omissions showing negligence, if not undue favor.

She could have easily investigated the misallocation of DAP funds to unbudgeted expenditures by asking Supreme Court staff to send her the list of DAP-funded programs and projects with no budgetary allocation, as the court had found.

Then Morales should have asked Abad to cite budgetary provisions authorizing those expenditures. Each item he could not back up is one count of technical malversation.

Another celebrated scandal Morales could have easily probed, but never did, is the 2011 disappearance of 2,000-plus cargo containers. By checking Customs release papers for the boxes, she could have charged with negligence or worse the officials who kept letting containers out after hundreds had vanished.

Then there’s the 2004 fertilizer fund scam, for which hard evidence had been gathered in Senate hearings in 2007, and the pork barrel scandal, with a computer hard drive listing suspect grafters and their nefarious deals. In both scams, she has yet to charge many legislators in the Aquino camp, while moving fast against opposition stalwarts.

The previous Ombudsman was impeached for purportedly favoring former President Gloria Arroyo. Conchita Carpio Morales has done far worse.


Please follow our commenting guidelines.


  1. The fertilizer fund scam in 2004 and the pork barrel cases that happened in2007 to 2009 all happened during the term of former President Gloria Arroyo.

    • Kasi nga kala nila makakupit sila nang hindi halata. E paano magawa sa DSWD at ibang ahensya may accounting at COA nakabantay dun. Kaya nilabas nila sa opisina and pira sa order ng DAP papunta sa bogus NGOs at projek, at pagkatapos doon maghahati-hati.

      Malinaw na?

  2. This time you lived up to your name Sir, Saludong-saludo ako sa insight niyo for exposing Omb. Morales’ failure to live up to her’s. You have articulated, factually and coherently the Omb.’s protection of criminal masterminds of DAP-PDAF tantamount to exonerating plunder.

    The usual defense alibi of Abad et. al., claiming “nakatulong naman e, at walang ninakaw” contradicts the facts, after 70+ billions have been siphoned from GAA to DAP PDAF projects, it ended-up with bogus NGO’s or fly by night contrived PAP’s “cash cow projects per commissions, far removed and unsupervised by technically competent mandated implementing agencies.

    A total accounting of every single, DAP PDAF project procurement must be publicly disclosed in court and reported fully on a website. PNoy’s gov’t syndicate institutionalized technical malversation and juggling of funds. This caused economic sabotage and retardation by diverting funds away from instead of to urgently programmed imropovements in mass-transit, national railway, expansion of national water and power generation, national broadband etc. As a result national development projects were put on hold, instead of being accelerated by DAP as it was purported to do.

  3. Mark Villones on

    If Florencio Abad and Benigno Aquino are not caressing prison bars from the inside by 2018 I will not believe that Rody Duterte is interested in stamping out corruption. Abad and Aquino are the biggest government thieves by far in Philippine history. They make the corruption allegations against Marcos look like kid’s play.

    • Everyone knew what Morales was and still they took no action against her and then declare how surprised and outraged they are every time she protects the Liberal party and Aquino.

  4. I hope some congressman takes up the complaint and move for impeachment of Morales. Please

  5. Rudi Miranda on

    Ric Saludo maraming salamat! Saludo ako! Tama lahat ang iyong mga sinabi! Hindi mo lang sinali ang miting na nangyayari ukol sa Hda. Luisita na muntik ng malusutan ni P-Noy, kung hindi tumayo ng matuwid si CJ Corona, at iyon ang kanyang kinasawi. Sana maitutuloy ang Presidential investigation sa Mamasapano 44, at heto nga ang Ombudsman decision for P-Noy and lighter judgment on Abad, bad talaga! Ba’t kaya na cocorupt ang korte. It’s relative! Bwahaha…

  6. The article is right on. There are good reasons why Aquino should have been indicted and why Morales should be impeached.

  7. This bruha who was appointed by an abnormal president should not only be impeached but be lynched by the people for shamelessly shielding her yellow president. Shame on her and shsme on her familywho obviously condoned her actions

  8. Your definitly right mr saludo, only a MORAL LESS ombudsman can and will exonerate penoy and the daf inventor A very bad man. She wasted people’s money by pretenciously examining the so many clear as the noon sun evidences. She should have decided the case a day or two after it was filed thus saviing peoples money. This is the very reason why delima insisted and cried to high heaven appealing that the case filed against her should be at the OMBADS GIRL THE TEAM ABNOY PROTECTOR.

  9. Strike 2. DAP was then declared unconstitutional by no less than the SC, but Morales gave a very light judgment on it. Worse, Aquino was acquitted. What has Abad anything to do with Corona?
    Strike 1 was the Mamasapano case. Aquino was exempted. What have Purisima and Napenas to benefit from Marwan’s neck?
    Paging the VACC…..!?

  10. Conchita Carpio Morales has done far worse.

    Morales has been stalling and protecting liberal party members for years and congress allowed it.
    The new Duterte administration is allowing it as well.

    (Morales is the sister of Atty. Lucas Carpio, Jr., husband of Court of Appeals Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio. Agnes and Lucas are the parents of Sara Duterte’s husband, Mans Carpio.)

    Whatever the reason, just sit back like everyone always does and let the corruption continue.

    Morales should of been removed when the new administration took over since they had to know how bias,selective and protective of the liberal party she has been.

    Same with the pork barrel thieves protected by Aquino that should of been arrested soon as Duterte took office.

    It’s always too late or too much work to fight corruption in the government, just easier to let them get away with it.

    • i agree that she must be removed upon assumption of PRRD, but her position is a constitutional body and only end of tenure, impeachment or resignation are the means to replace her. Natural Death is also an option.