Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
Agham Rd., Diliman, Quezon City 1104

WILFREDO B. REYES,
Complainant,

- versus - OMB-L-A-17-0241

PEDRO S. AGCAOILI, JR., ET AL.,

Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

JOINT-COUNTER AFFIDAVIT with COMMENTS

(ON THE PRAYER FOR PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION)
We, CHARITO C. JULIAN, FE P. SIAZON, EVANGELINE C. TABULOG, and
JOSEPHINE P. CALAJATE, all Filipinos, of legal age and residents of 72 P. Acosta St., Brgy.
15, Laoag City; House No. 037, Sitio 1, Brgy. 47, Laoag City; Brgy. 40, Balatong, Laoag City;
and Brgy. 20-A, Gabut Norte, Badoc City, Ilocos Norte, respectively, after having been duly
sworn according to law hereby depose and state that:

1. We are among the six (6) respondents in this administrative case and are being sued
in our capacity as the Bids and Award Committee Members of the Provincial
Government of Ilocos Norte, with office address at the Provincial Capitol Building,
Laoag City;

2. Pursuant to the directive of this Honorable Office we are classified as having Salary
Grade 20, 22, 26 and 26, respectively, under Executive Order No. 2011;

3. We vehemently deny the allegation of the complainant insofar as his personal

circumstances is concerned for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to form a
belief thereto. If complainant is sincere and truthful to this Honorable Office, he could
have stated his true name and address and not to cloak anonymity in the guise of
personal security:

3.1 Complainant may be a fictitious person. Complainant did not indicate nor allege in
his complaint his actual residence or if he is of legal age, married or single. In fact,
there is a couple of registered mails (marked as Annex A) sent to him by the
private respondent through his temporary postal address which were returned due
to the reason that he has MOVED OUT;

1
Modifying the Salary Schedule of Civilian Government Personnel and Authorizing the Grant of Additional
Benefits for Both Civilian and Military and Uniformed Personnel, February 19, 2016.
 3.1.1 Based on the Tax Identification Number provided for by the complainant
in his Verification and with the help of the Philippine National Police
(PNP), together with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the date
of birth of the complainant appears to be January 13, 1964 (marked as
Annex B);
3.1.2 Based on the records of the PNP, there is only one (1) Wilfredo Reyes
(marked as Annex C) as a close match with the age of the complainant.
The PNP records show that this Wilfredo Reyes is a person notoriously
engaged in crimes involving illegal drugs, armed robbery, kidnapping for
ransom, gun for hire, and a member of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang.
This only justifies why the complainant needs to indicate a false address,
i.e., for security reasons. He has nothing to lose, indeed, by filing this
malicious complaint as a bogus since he is already one;
3.2 By using a temporary postal address, complainant is merely trying to avoid any
adverse legal repercussion which may be effected against him due to this vexatious
complaint; thus, violating the Rules of Court and constitutional right of the
respondents:

3.2.1 Sec. 3, Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of Court requires any complaint to
indicate the name and RESIDENCES of the parties, to wit:
Section 3. Complaint. The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names
and RESIDENCES of the plaintiff and defendant must be
stated in the complaint. (Emphasis ours);

3.2.2 The law likewise grants any respondent the right to confront his
witnesses;
3.3 By deliberately and premeditatedly using a false identity and address, complainant
ensures that the respondents and this Honorable Office could not take reprisals,
leaving them without any recourse against the complainant and misleading the
Honorable Office into investigating the complaint;
3.4 Respondents surmise that complainant is, in fact, an authorized representative of
Best Forms, Inc. (BFI)
3.4.1 Since March of this year, complainant and officers of BFI has engaged
in filing at least ten (10) completely unwarranted and false complaints2
(marked as Annexes D and series) under deceitful representations,
with malice and gross bad faith, before the office of the Ombudsman for
Luzon, making the complainant, being a private person, as the principal
respondent in all of the complaints;

2
OMB Case Nos. L-C-17-0244, L-C-17-0275, L-C-17-0283, L-C-17-0287, L-C-17-0284, L-C-17-0286, L-C-17-
0246, L-C-17-0259, L-C-17-0235, and L-C-17-0237.
 3.4.2 This can be deduced from the fact that all complaints bear the same font
and almost the same contents;
3.4.3 In one of the said complaints3, Reyes made the mistake of indicating in
his Verification that he is an authorized representative of BFI; thus,
uncovering the true masterminds of the complaints;
3.5 Thus the principals of the complainant, if not the complainants themselves under
an assumed name, include the persons comprising the BFI;
3.5.1 To support the allegation that complainant is part of BFI, only members,
either as suppliers/contractors or procuring entities of PhlGEPs4, a single
portal which serves as the primary source of information on government
procurement,5 are allowed to use and access the PhilGEPs market. The
contractor-members of the PhilGEPs are issued security passwords
after passing stringent qualification standards and exhaustive screening
by the GPPB to assure their legitimacy. Therefore, having accessed the
PhilGEPs records and acquired the Notice of Awards which he used as
evidence in his complaint, leads to an unquestionable conclusion that
complainant has a member access to the PhilGEPs;

3.5.2 BFI is, in fact, an illegal subcontractor of National Printing Office (NPO).
In 2008, it was charged with ESTAFA by NPO and was the subject of
two (2) cases6 also before the Ombudsman which include PLUNDER as
one of its charges. In fact, on-going is the trial for falsification case7
against BFI before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court - Branch 216;

4. We likewise specifically deny the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint

for lack of knowledge and information as to the personal circumstances of Mr.
Guillermo L. Sylianteng, Jr. We do not recall having met Mr. Guillermo L. Sylianteng,
Jr.;
5. We further deny the material allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint,
the truth of the matter being that there was no anomalous transaction to speak of in
which these alleged JOHN AND JANE DOES have participated, colluded and/or
conspired. If complainant is full of evidence, he could have expounded on the alleged
rigged bid and prove it by providing evidence. Complainant merely stated rigged
which is a conclusion of law;

6. We also vehemently deny the material allegations contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of

the Complaint, the truth of the matter being that the alleged anomalous transactions
purportedly made between and among herein respondents were in truth and in fact,
transactions between the City Government of Baguio and the private respondent, not
with public respondent Agcoili. The PhilGEPS Award Notice Abstract with Reference
No. 476259 which was marked as Annex B in the Complaint and erroneously marked

3
OMB Case No. L-C-17-0246.
4
Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System.
5
Section 8.1.1, 2016 Revised IRR of R.A. No. 9184.
6
OMB Case NO. C-C-17-0087 and OMB Case NO. C-C-17-0004.
7
Criminal Case NO. Q-12-17766-30 (OMB C-C-08-270-G).
 again by the complainant as Annex C was a transaction between the City
Government of Baguio and the private respondent.

7. We likewise fervently deny the material allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the

Complaint, the truth being that the PhilGEPS Award Notice Abstract with Reference
No. 520632 which was marked as Annex D by the complainant is a transaction again
with the City Government of Baguio-Benguet and the private respondent, not with
public respondent Agcaoili. While it is true that the transaction is with a budget contract
amounting to Php69,980.00 and was awarded on August 22, 2013, it is without a doubt
that complainant with intent to defraud, deceive and mislead this Honorable Court, by
claiming that it is the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte (PGIN) with whom private
respondent has transacted;

8. We furthermore specifically deny as well all the allegations contained in paragraphs 8,

9 and 10 as to the existence of any transaction between herein private respondent or
one respondent Concio8 and the City Government of Baguio for lack of knowledge
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness thereof. Again, the
complaint having been a cut-and-paste, the transaction with Baguio City may not
have been omitted;

9. It is to be noted that not even one among these alleged anomalous transactions were
participated by PGIN. These transactions were between the private respondent, one
respondent Concio and/or the City Government of Baguio;

10. We are not in one with complainant in his stand that the PGIN, as local government
unit, is part of the coverage of the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB)
Resolution No. 05-2010, as amended, or only Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, National
Printing Office and APO Production Unit, Inc. are authorized and recognized
government printers in accordance with updated and existing laws and regulations;

11. Contrary to the allegation of the complainant as regards his love for his country,
together with his masterminds, their real motive and intention is to seek vengeance by
impleading officials and employees of various local government units (LGUs) to which
we belong, being unmindful of the financial burden the latter would suffer;

12. It may be worth mentioning that the NBI recommended the indictment of BFI this month
as regards the Social Security Services (SSS) scam. BFI filed cases9 against NPO
Assistant Director, Atty. Sherwin Castaeda because the latter exposed the SSS
subcontracting scam where BFI awarded that multi-million peso printing job absent any
bidding;

13. Additionally, complainant and BFI likewise connived with dismissed NPO officials in
filing multiple unwarranted, malicious and vexatious criminal suits10 against NPO
officials, including NPO Asst. Director Atty. Sherwin Castaeda and Letilin Samosa
because these officials were deemed to have blocked their illegal payments from the

8
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, Complaint.
9
OMB Case No. C-A-17-0175 and OMB Case No. C-C-17-0183.
10
OMB Case No. C-C-17-0193 and OMB Case No. C-A-17-0175.
 Php 73 Million SSS subcontracting printing anomaly11 and exposed their
monkeyshines;

14. Amplifying the impartiality of the complainant and his intention to seek revenge, the
other government agencies who have similarly made procurements (marked as
Annexes E and series) in accordance with R.A. No. 918412 for years and their
contractors, including BFI, have not been charged by this so-called patriotic taxpayer
and citizen;

15. To reiterate, respondents have never met each other. Hence, it is absolutely
impossible that all the respondents were engaged in machinations and conspiracy. All
of the procurements of PGIN were made through advertised public bidding which is in
accordance with the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9184.
There is no way for the respondents to conspire since they were never privy to the bids
of other potential bidders. All the bids received by PGIN would be consequently
opened to the other bidders. Hence, there was no anomalous transaction to speak of
in which these alleged John and Jane does have directly participated with collusion
and conspiracy;

16. All the more that there are no simulated nor predetermined biddings contrary to the
allegations of the complainant. As can be gleaned from the complainants own pieces
of evidence,13 PGIN issued public Invitation to Bids. Such being the case, complainant
and BFI were not barred from participating in the public bidding. They had the
opportunity but they chose not to be involved in such bidding. Inasmuch as they did
not participate, they cannot now make allegations that the subject biddings were
simulated, predetermined or rigged. It follows that they do not have any knowledge of
what really transpired during the procurement process. Hence, they cannot assail the
regularity of the subject public biddings. For the complainant to overcome the
presumption of regularity, he must present concrete evidence. Their claims and
allegations do not, therefore, hold water;

17. Complainant sweepingly stated that crimes were committed by respondents just by
enumerating one by one the laws and regulations allegedly violated by the latter
without even propounding how these laws and regulations were specifically violated.
Contrary to the claim of the complainant, we did not, in truth and in fact, violate R.A.
No. 9184, the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2012, Sections 3 (e), (f) and (g) of
R.A. 3019,14 GPPB Resolution No. 05-2010 and DILG Memorandum Circular No. 32-
2012;

18. In relation to the alleged violation of R.A. No. 9184, complainant, failed to state what
specific provision of the said Act was violated. In fact, complainant himself has used
Notices15 posted on PhilGEPs as his evidence. Therefore, he admits that the
procurement undertaken by PGIN complied fully with R.A. No. 9184. Merely for the

11
OMB Case No. C-C-17-0087.
12
Government Procurement Reform Act
13
Annexes B, C, D, E and F of the Complaint.
14
Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
15
Annexes B, C, D, E and F of the Complaint.
sake of discussion, Sections 65.1, 65.2 and 65.3 of the 2016 Revised IRR of R.A. No.
9184 provides for the violations concerning public official, to wit:
Section 65. Offenses and Penalties
65.1. Without prejudice to the provisions of R.A. 3019 and other penal
laws, public officers who commit any of the following acts shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day, but not more than fifteen (15) years:
a) Opening any sealed bid including but not limited to Bids that may
have been submitted through the electronic system and any and all
documents required to be sealed or divulging their contents, prior to
the appointed time for the public opening of Bids or other
documents.
b) Delaying, without justifiable cause, the screening for eligibility,
opening of bids, evaluation and post evaluation of bids, and
awarding of contracts beyond the prescribed periods of action
provided for in this IRR.
c) Unduly influencing or exerting undue pressure on any member of
the BAC or any officer or employee of the Procuring Entity to take a
particular action which favors, or tends to favor a particular bidder.
d) Splitting of contracts which exceed procedural purchase limits to
avoid competitive bidding or to circumvent the limits of approving or
procurement authority.
e) Abuse by the HoPE of his power to reject any and all bids as
mentioned under Section 41 of the Act and this IRR, with manifest
preference to any bidder who is closely related to him in accordance
with Section 47 of the Act and this IRR.
When any of the foregoing acts is done in collusion with private
individuals, the private individuals shall likewise be liable for the offense;
In addition, the public officer involved shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary disqualification from public office, while the private individual
shall be permanently disqualified from transacting business with the
Government;
65.2. Private individuals who commit any of the following acts, and any
public officer who conspires with them, shall upon conviction, suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
but not more than fifteen (15) years:
a) When two or more bidders agree and submit different bids as bona
fide bidders, all the while knowing that the bid(s) of one or more of
them was so much higher than the other that the latter could not be
honestly accepted and that the contract will surely be awarded to
the pre-arranged lowest bid.
b) When a bidder maliciously submits different bids through two or
more persons, corporations, partnerships or any other business
entity in which he has an interest, to create the appearance of
 competition that does not in fact exist so as to be adjudged as the
winning bidder.
c) When two or more bidders enter into an agreement which calls upon
one or more of them to refrain from bidding for procurement
contracts, or which requires one or more of them to withdraw Bids
already submitted, in order to secure an undue advantage to any
one of them.
d) When a bidder, by himself or in connivance with others, employs
schemes which tend to restrain the natural rivalry of the parties or
operates to stifle or suppress competition and thus produce a result
disadvantageous to the public.
In addition, the public officer persons involved shall also suffer the
penalty of temporary or perpetual disqualification from public office and
the private individual shall be permanently disqualified from transacting
business with the Government.
65.3.Private individuals who commit any of the following acts, and any
public officer conspiring with them, shall upon conviction, suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
but not more than fifteen (15) years:
a) Submitting eligibility requirements of whatever kind and nature that
contain false information or falsified documents calculated to
influence the outcome of the eligibility screening process or conceal
such information in the eligibility requirements when the information
will lead to a declaration of ineligibility from participating in
competitive bidding.
b) Submitting Bidding Documents of whatever kind and nature that
contain false information or falsified documents or conceal such
information in the Bidding Documents, in order to influence the
outcome of the competitive bidding.
c) Participating in a competitive bidding using the name of another or
allowing another to use ones name for the purpose of participating
in a competitive bidding.
d) Withdrawing a bid, after it shall have qualified as the Lowest
Calculated Bid/Highest Rated Bid, or refusing to accept an award,
without just cause or for the purpose of forcing the Procuring Entity
to award the contract to another bidder. This shall include the non-
submission within the prescribed time, or delaying the submission
of requirements such as, but not limited to, performance security,
preparatory to the final award of the contract;

19. Not a single one from the above provisions was violated by me nor alleged by the
complainant to have been violated. Clearly then, this vexatious complaint is filed by
the complainant for the sole purpose of harassing the respondents;

20. The complainant proceeds that Sections 3(e), (f) and (g) of R.A. 3019 were violated.
The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019:
 a. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or
official functions;
b. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable
negligence; and
c. That his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government,
or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his functions;16

21. There is no question that we are public officers discharging official function. The
second element, for its part, describes the three ways by which a violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence;

22. In Sison v. People,17 the Supreme Court defined partiality, bad faith and gross
negligence as follows:
Partiality is synonymous with bias which excites a disposition to see and
report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are. Bad faith
does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a
wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will;
it partakes of the nature of fraud. Gross negligence has been so defined
as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never
fail to take on their own property. x x x

23. In order to hold a person liable for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, it is required
that the act constituting the offense consists of either (1) causing undue injury to any
party, including the government, or (2) giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge by the accused of his official,
administrative or judicial functions;

24. By merely conducting a public bidding, any man of logic and reasoning would arrive
at conclusion that respondent did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence, that we respondents did not cause undue injury to any
party, not even the government, and that we did not give any private party unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference. Complainant should be reminded that it is neither
us, individually, nor the Bids and Awards Committee of PGIN could have control over
the bids;

25. A violation of Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019 is committed when the following
elements18 exist:

16
Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 350, 360 (2004), citing Jacinto v. Sandiganbayan, 387 Phil. 872, 881 (2000).
17
G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 670.
18
Coronado v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 94955, 18 August 1993, 225 SCRA 406, 410.
 a. The offender is a public officer;
b. The said officer has neglected or has refused to act without sufficient
justification after due demand or request has been made on him;
c. Reasonable time has elapsed from such demand or request without the public
officer having acted on the matter pending before him; and
d. Such failure to so act is "for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from
any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage in favor of an interested party, or discriminating against another;

26. At the outset, it is beyond doubt that we and complainant never had any transaction
with each other. Complainant can even be an inexistent being. Hence, there is never
a demand or request addressed to us coming from the complainant or from anybody
for that matter which we could have failed to act upon;

27. On the other hand, for one to be successfully prosecuted under Section 3(g) of RA
3019, the following elements must be proven: 1) the accused is a public officer; 2) the
public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
3) the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.19

28. Based on the evidence20 of the complainant, the contracts were awarded to the private
respondent for the reason being that his company, Ready Form, Inc. (RFI) has the
lowest calculated responsive bids. Hence, there is no way that PGIN was positioned
at a grossly and manifestly disadvantageous state. The Supreme Court even ruled
that lack of public bidding alone does not result in a manifest and gross disadvantage.
Indeed, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able
to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption.
Nevertheless, the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross;21

29. Additionally, the Commission on Audit (COA) has already audited all of the
transactions of PGIN and have not disallowed the latters transactions with the private
respondent. For this reason, the claim that there is disadvantage suffered by the
government is devoid of merit;

30. On top of it, the undue injury to have been sustained by the government for violation
of Section 3, R.A. 3018 to be committed by us must pertain to actual damages capable
of pecuniary estimation and is quantifiable as to its amount.22 The complainant failed
to state any quantifiable damage to the government or even to himself. As a matter of
fact, as have been discussed herein, the government was never positioned at a grossly
and manifestly disadvantageous state. It is the government, in fact, which sustained
full advantage in all its transactions with RFI for having gained from the letter the best
possible price for its contracts;

19
Nava v. Palattao, 531 Phil. 345, 372 (2006)
20
Annexes B, C and D of the Complaint.
21
Nava v. Palattao, 531 Phil. 345, 372 (2006)
22
Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 122166, promulgated on March 11, 1998
 31. Section 29 of the GAA 2010, by virtue of which GPPB Resolution No. 05 -2010 was
promulgated, states that:
Section 29. Printing and Public Expenditures. Departments,
bureaus, offices or agencies are hereby given the option to engage the
services of private printers in their printing and publication activities,
subject to public bidding in accordance with R.A. No. 9184, and to
pertinent accounting and auditing rules and regulations: PROVIDED,
That the printing of accountable forms and sensitive high quality/volume
printing requirements shall only be undertaken by recognized
government printers, namely: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, National
Printing Office (NPO) and APO Production Unit, Inc. (APO);
32. However, this provision could not have been violated by us due to the fact that this
has already been invalidated by Executive Order No. 378 s. 2004 (marked as Annex
F) in Banda v. Ermita.23 Pursuant to Executive Order No. 378, government agencies
and instrumentalities are allowed to source their printing services from the private
sector through competitive bidding, subject to the condition that the services offered
by the private supplier be of superior quality and lower in cost compared to what was
offered by the NPO. 24 In this instant case, RFIs prices for PGINs Official Receipt AF
51 is Php102.00 per pad as seen from the Notice of Award. The NPO and APO prices
are Php115.00 per pad and Php 125.00 per pad FOB Ilocos Norte (marked as Annexes
G and H). Hence, PGIN can validly source out from private sector;

33. Under the EO No. 378, the NPO remains the main printing arm of the government for
all kinds of government forms and publications but in the interest of greater economy
and encouraging efficiency and profitability, it must now compete with the private
sector for certain government printing jobs.25 (Underlining ours);

34. The objective behind Executive Order No. 378 is wholly consistent with the state policy
contained in Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act to
encourage competitiveness by extending equal opportunity to private contracting
parties who are eligible and qualified;26

35. In fact, the ruling on Banda v. Ermita has been acknowledged by GPPB in its website
(marked as Annex I). Hence, such is now embodied in jurisprudence regarding
printing of accountable forms;

36. In a civil case27 (marked as Annex J) for Declaratory Relief questioning the Land
Transportation Offices procurement accountable forms through public bidding in
accordance with R.A. 9184 before Branch 213 of the Mandaluyong Regional Trial
Court ( RTC), the latter ruled that:

23
G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Civil Case No. MC-10-4337
 xxx it is clear that R.A. 9184 repealed also the exclusivity granted to
the NPO and its authority to subcontract.

37. As regards NPO Subcontract Biddings, the court continued to rule that:

As a result, the premises for the authority of NPO to conduct public

bidding and to accredit and subcontract printing jobs of government
forms as well as the exclusivity over such printing jobs except for
election paraphernalia is now inexistent. Also, the premise of the prior
waiver required under M.C. No. 190 is likewise repealed since the GAA
of 2009 which embodied said provision has already expired.
(Underlining ours);

38. In relation to its ruling with regard to procurement of Accountable Forms, the court
likewise ruled:
In relation to this petition, the procuring entity for LTOs printing needs
which is for use in transacting public businesses and used for its day-
to-day operations is solely vested and depends with the LTO, through
its BAC since Sections 5 and 10 of R.A. No. 9184 requres that all
procurement must be conducted solely through the respective BAC of
the procuring entity. Hence, the LTO should in accordance with RA
9184 make its procurement through its BAC. (Underlining ours);

36. In its Order (marked as Annex K) for its ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration on
the same case,28 the court ruled as follows:
as previously articulated by this court, R.A. 9184 is the sole law
governing all types of government procurement including that of all
types of accountable forms. Said law made no distinction as to the type
of accountable forms and said law has not been re[pealed nor amended
in any manner. Being the procurement law, all government agencies
and the transacting public are bound to adhere to its Implementing rules
and regulations (IRR) in making procurements for the government.
(Underlining ours);

37. The court likewise ruled that:

To continue, respondent is correct when it countered that a provision
of the GAA cannot repeal a law which is in accordance in the
pronouncement in Philippine Constitutional Association v. Enriquez29
that a provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal or
amend other laws.
Finally, as properly observed by respondent, the Sec. 90 of the GAA of
2010 repealed the exclusivity granted to government printers through
Sec. 29 of the same GAA by statutory construction hence, petitioner
28
Ibid.
29
G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994.
 Tripints arguments of NPOs right based on a provision of the GAA is
invalid. (Underlining ours);
38. This decision of RTC was appealed to and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA)
through its Entry of Judgment in CA GR CV No. 96075 (marked as Annex L);

39. Through the Doctrine Stare Decisis, the decision rendered by RTC and CA is
applicable to all future cases involving the same or similar issues. Any party still
seeking to controvert this decision is estopped since it is now final and conclusive. To
restate, a GAA provision or an executive issuance cannot serve to amend R.A. No.
9184;

40. Going back to Section 29, GAA 2010 which is the very foundation of the contention of
the complainant, General Appropriations Acts are only applicable to national
government agencies. LGUs are not covered by it. Section 22(d) in relation to Section
468 of the Local Government Code (LGC)30 states that LGUs are autonomous from
the national government through issuances of their respective Sanggunians for all their
budgetary and administrative requirements. With respect to their procurement, it is
R.A. No. 9184 which governs;

41. The Supreme Court (SC), in Leynes vs. COA,31 a general appropriations act or even
an executive issuance cannot amend the LGC. In another case, the SC likewise ruled
that:
In this case, RA 7160 (the LGC of 1991) is a special law which
exclusively deals with local government units (LGUs), outlining their
powers and functions in consonance with the constitutionally mandated
policy of local autonomy. RA 7645 (the GAA of 1993), on the other hand,
was a general law which outlined the share in the national fund of all
branches of the national government. RA 7645 therefore, being a
general law, could not have, by mere implication, repealed RA 7160.
Rather, RA 7160 should be taken as the exception to RA 7645 in the
absence of circumstances warranting a contrary conclusion;32

42. Furthermore, SC again elaborates why an executive orders or issuances cannot

operate to govern LGUS, thus:

The Constitution vests the President with the power of supervision, not
control, over local government units (LGUs).Such power enables him to
see to it that LGUs and their officials execute their tasks in accordance
with law. While he may issue advisories and seek their cooperation in
solving economic difficulties, he cannot prevent them from performing
their tasks and using available resources to achieve their goals. He may
not withhold or alter any authority or power given them by the law. Thus,
the withholding of a portion of internal revenue allotments legally due
them cannot be directed by administrative fiat;33

30
R.A. 7160.
31
G.R. No. 143596. December 11, 2003.
32
Villegas vs. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 [1971].
33
Pimentel vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988. July 19, 2000.
 43. The SC proceeds, thus:

Although the Philippines is a unitary State, the present Constitution (as

in the past) accommodates within the system the operation of local
government units with enhanced administrative autonomy and
autonomous regions with limited political autonomy. Subject to the
Presidents power of general supervision and exercising delegated
powers, these units and regions operate much like the national
government, with their own executive and legislative branches, financed
by locally generated and nationally allocated funds disbursed through
budgetary ordinances passed by their local legislative councils. The
DBMs submission tinkers with this design by making provisions in
national budgetary laws automatically incorporated in local budgetary
ordinances, thus reducing local legislative councils from the provinces
down to the barangays and the legislative assembly of the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao, to mere extensions of Congress. Although
novel, the theory is anathema to the present vertical structure of
Philippine government and to any notion of local autonomy which the
Constitution mandates;34

44. On account of the doctrine of Res Judicata, the imposition of provisions of the National
Budgets or GAAs on LGUs is proscribed;

45. On the strength of the doctrine of inappropriate provision, as enshrined in Henry v.

Edwards,35 the Court cited, thus:

Just as the President may not use his item-veto to usurp constitutional
powers conferred on the legislature, neither can the legislature deprive
the Governor of the constitutional powers conferred on him as chief
executive officer of the state by including in a general appropriation bill
matters more properly enacted in separate legislation.

46. GPPB Resolution No. 05-2010 is an irregular implementation made by GPPB of GAA
2010, particularly Section 29 thereof as well as DILG MC 32-2012 which is a mere
reiteration of GPPB Resolution No. 05-2010. Such resolution cannot apply to LGUs
inasmuch as it was derived from a GAA;

47. Even assuming without conceding that GPPB Resolution No. 05-2010 is valid, the list
of accountable forms annexed36 to the complaint did not include personalized and
specialized PGIN forms;

48. Section 29 of GAA 2010 which was cited in the first Whereas clause of GPPB
Resolution No. 05-2010 (marked as Annex M) even states that it is specifically the
Departments, Bureaus, Offices and Agencies which are directed by the said GAA to
make their procurement of accountable forms through recognized government printers
(RGPs). LGUs are nowhere to be found in such enumeration; thus, applying the
34
DBM vs. Leones, G.R. No. 169726, March 18, 2010.
35
La., 346 So. 2d 153 (1977).
36
Annex A, Complaint.
 principles of Ejusdem generis and Expressio unius est exlusio alterius, GAA covers
only national departments, bureaus, offices and agencies, not local government units;

49. The scope and application of R.A. No. 9184, through its Section 4, includes local
government units; thus it is specific in imposing to LGUs method of procurement for
accountable forms. On the other hand, the scope and application of GAA 2010 covers
specifically Departments, Bureaus, Offices and Agencies;

50. Section 63 of R.A. No. 9184 mandates GPPB to implement only the said Republic Act
and consequently, it cannot enforce any other law including that of GAAs. The words
of the law are clear, it specifically stated Departments, Bureaus, Offices and Agencies.
Henceforth, GPPB cannot transform these words into one as Procuring Entities and
include what is not covered under the law, i.e., LGUs;

51. Complainant is likewise prompted of the existence of Department of Finance -

Department Order No. 1-09 (marked as Annex N), dated January 6, 2009, Bureau of
Local Government Finance (BLGF) Local Finance Circular No. 1-09 (marked as
Annex O), and Bureau of Local Government Finance Memorandum Circular No.
09-2009 (marked as Annex P);

52. Department of Finance Department Order No. 1-09 allows the printing of customized
LGU accountable forms from private printing service providers. BLGF Local Finance
Circular No. 1-09 provides the guidelines in the eligibility/pre-qualification of private
printers for LGU accountable forms while BLGF Memorandum Circular No. 09-2009
espouses the February 20, 2009 Legal Opinion rendered by the Office of the President
which affirms that NPO cannot subcontract printing jobs and must compete with private
printers for such printing requirements. In a subsequent Legal Opinion likewise
rendered by the Office of the President dated May 25, 2009, the Office of the President
affirmed that Memorandum Order 38, which is the basis of Memorandum Circular 180
has been repealed by R.A. No. 9184;

53. In fact, any waiver provision required under the GAA from 2014 up to the present,
2017, and under any resolution of the GPPB has been determined by the Office of the
President, through its Legal Office, to be illegal and irregular as early as February 24,
2009 (marked as Annex Q) and May 25, 2009 (marked as Annex R) when the Office
of the President issued Legal Opinions addressed to the BLGF;

54. Once more, the waiver provision embodied in the GAA existed as early as 2007 and
the issue of its requirement/implementation has already been determined and
expressly invalidated by the Office of the President as early as 2009 and later in CA
GR CV No. 96075. As a result, its imposition has no legal basis;

55. Even the COA through a letter (marked as Annex S) of Regional Director I, Director
Lynn Sicangco, now Region III COA Regional Director, affirms that the Bids and
Awards Committee of any LGU has the discretion where to procure its goods and
services; To wit:

Again, let us reiterate our response to you that in the procurement

process, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) is responsible for
 ensuring that the Procuring Entity abides by the standards set forth in
R.A. 9184 and its implementing rules and regulations. To enhance the
transparency of the process, in addition to the COA representative, two
others from the private sectors sit as observers in the proceedings. The
role of the COA Representative at the time of bidding was only as a
witness to insure documentary integrity and not to insist to Management
as where to procure goods and services.
56. COA Regional Director II, Director Pelilia Veloso likewises opines, in her letter dated
September 19, 2016 (marked as Annex T) that:

In relation thereto, please be informed that this Office is bound to

observe the laws, rule and regulation on matters brought before it,
including the decisions of the Supreme Court which forms part of the
land, and the decisions of the Court of Appeals which has attained
finality.

Rest assured that this Office will apply strictly the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 96075. (Underlining ours.)

57. COA Regional Director X, Director Celso Vocal, affirms in his indorsement dated April
6, 2017 (marked as Annex U) to the COA General Counsel that he agrees GAA or
Executive Issuances cannot amend R.A. No. 9184. He stated that:

After a careful evaluation of the pertinent paper/communications, taken

together with the earlier submission of Mr. Sylianteng Jr., we are of the
considered view that there is enough legal ground in support of the view
that indeed the NPO no longer has exclusive jurisdiction over the
printing service requirement of government standard and accountable
forms. (Underlining ours.)

58. At this point, other current COA regional director or any member thereof, has insisted
on implementing GAA provisions or executive issuances in writing at this time;

59. GPPB, as a matter of fact, through Resolution No. 12-2014, has made a
recommendation to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that the
procurement of Accountable Forms be subjected to competitive biddings after the
ruling of the Court of Appeals that GPPBs basis for GPPB Resolution No. 05-2010 is
irregular and illegal;

60. Hence, the contention of the complainant that PGIN, as a local government unit, is
part of the coverage of the GPPB Resolution No. 05-201037, as amended, is baseless,
unfounded and fallacious;

61. If there is any party which should properly file this complaint, it is the NPO and not the
complainant because it is the formers rights which are at stake. However, NPO has

37
Paragraph 12, Complaint.
 already circulated letter in 2015 that it admits loss of exclusivity by virtue of GPPB
Resolution No. 05-2010, GAA Provisions and executive issuances;

62. Hence, even more that there is no basis for this complaint. Evidently, this complaint is
bereft of merit and in fact criminal. Its commencement and accomplishment was
committed by a notorious criminal, taking advantage of parody and perversion while
violating Section 35 and 36 of RA 6770 for being vexations, false, unjustified, malicious
and perjured pleading and henceforth should be straightaway DISMISSED;

63. In the instant case, Section 35 is evidently violated for its elements are all present, to
wit:

a. Any person who with malice or gross bad faith files a complaint;
b. The complaint is completely unwarranted or false; and
c. The complaint was filed against government official or employee;

64. Not only did the complainant and his principals violate Section 35 and 36 of RA No.
6770 but by citing annulled and inapplicable issuances, by their misrepresentations,
and consequently by totally disrespecting this Honorable Office and all legal
proceedings, they likewise committed the crimes of Estafa, False Testimony, Perjury,
Falsification, and Malicious Machinations;

65. Complainant is likewise engaged in Forum Shopping by being fully aware that the
DILG Circular and GPPB Resolutions he cited had long been invalidated by Court
orders. As NPO subcontractor, he knew that the circulars and resolutions he cited were
already invalidated since the NPO was made a necessary party to the Court Orders
invalidating Section 29 of the GAA and in domino effect, the DILG and GPPB circulars;

66. All of the respondents were wickedly and purposely impleaded by the complainant
through the use of fraud in creating his false identity, and by perjuring about the
circumstances of PGINs procurement process, a glaring violation of both Section 35
and 36 of R.A. No. 6770;

67. It is the complainant and his principals therefore should be investigated by this
Honorable Office and charged by the Sandiganbayan for patent violations of R.A. No.
6770;

68. Complainant has perjured and misled this Honorable Office by intentionally failing to
inform this Office that the issued on the validity of issuances relying on Section 29 of
GAA 2010 has already been resolved by Court in favor of R.A. No. 9184 as
procurement method for accountable forms;

69. In view of the foregoing, complainant should be charged with violation of Section 35
and 36 of R.A. No. 6770. He should also be charged with the crimes of Estafa, False
Testimony, Perjury, Falsification, and Malicious Machinations;

70. The propensity of complainant to commit perjury is amplified by the fact that he
falsified the JURAT of all his complaints, including this very complaint. To prove
this, Atty. ROGELIO J. BOLIVAR denied having notarized the complaint nor
 having met complainant. A copy of the letter of Atty. Bolivar is hereto attached as
Annex V;

COMMENTS ON PRAYER FOR PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

71. It is worth mentioning at the outset that it is only respondent Engr. Pedro S. Agcaoili,
Jr. who was specifically prayed for by the complainant to be preventively suspended,
as can be gleaned from the latters prayer in his complaint;

72. Even assuming, however, that the rest of the public respondents were to be prayed
for to be similarly preventively suspended, such prayer is without any legal and factual
ground;

73. Under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, it states that:

Section 24. Preventives Suspension. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may

preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an
investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the
charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or
grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would
warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in
office may prejudice the case filed against him.
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the
Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six (6) months, without pay, except
when the delay in the disposition of the case by the Office of the Ombudsman
is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the
period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension
herein provided;

74. Clearly, it is from the above that the law sets forth two conditions that must be satisfied
to justify the issuance of an order of preventive suspension pending an investigation,
to wit:
1. The evidence of guilt is strong; and
2. Either of the following circumstances co-exist with the first requirement:

a. The charge involves dishonesty, oppression or grave

misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty;
b. The charge would warrant removal from the service; or
c. The respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice
the case filed against him;

75. First and foremost, the evidence is never strong. Taking into account the integrity of
the DOF instructions, the BLGF instruction, the Court Orders issued by the Supreme
Court in the Banda Case and the Court of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 96075 as well as
abiding by the Legal Opinion of the Office of the President and that of COA Regional
Directors, it cannot be said that the procurement of accountable forms made by the
 Province in accordance with R.A. No. 9184 is irregular. Hence, not only is the element
of strong evidence of guilt lacking in the instant case but public respondents are not
even guilty at all of the offense being charged against them;

76. In fact, PGIN is never responsible for the alleged anomalous transactions which
complainant singled out in his complaint. Again, these transactions were between the
private respondent and the City Government of Baguio, or if not, one respondent
Concio;

77. Complainant failed to present any evidence to prove the grounds or elements of
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty on
our part. Allegations concerning the commission of any of the foregoing violations are
nowhere to be found in the complaint. Hence, the grant of the prayer for the issuance
of preventive suspension against public respondents would tantamount to denial of
due process;

78. Further, our continued stay in office can never prejudice the case filed against us. This
Honorable Court should be prompted with the fact that the pieces of evidence
presented by the complainant against us were substantially sourced from the website
of PhilGEPs, a single portal which serves as the primary source of information on
government procurement;
79. There is no way can we, being the Bids and Awards Committee of PGIN, prejudice the
information coming from the PhilGEPs website for we have no control of such. This
Electronic Procurement System is being managed by the DBM and under the direct
supervision of GPPB. It is virus-resilient and has sufficient security. It also has
centralized electronic bulletin board for posting procurement opportunities, notices,
awards and reasons for award. All procuring entities, including PGIN, are required to
post all procurement opportunities, results of bidding and related information in the
PhilGEPS bulletin board;38
80. Inasmuch as the claims of the complainant have no basis in law and in fact, and the
grounds for the issuance of preventive suspension were not satisfied in the instant
case, the prayer for the issuance of said suspension against us should be denied;

STATEMENT FOR THE ELECTION OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION

81. Memorandum Circular No. 19 Series of 1999 otherwise known as the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service states:

Section 17. Answer. The answer, which is in writing and under oath, shall
be specific and shall contain material facts and applicable laws, if any,
including documentary evidence, sworn statements covering testimonies of
witnesses, if there be any, in support of his case. It shall also include a
statement indicating whether or not he elects a formal investigation;

38
Section 8.2, IRR, R.A. 9184.
 82. We respectfully manifest that a formal investigation be conducted for purposes of
cross-examining the complainant and his witnesses;
83. We are executing this counter-affidavit to attest to the truth of all the foregoing and in
support to our prayer for the dismissal of this case;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 15th day of September,
2017 at Laoag City.

CHARITO C. JULIAN FE P. SIAZON

PGIN ID NO. 1985-446 PGIN ID NO. 1989-1027
Affiant Affiant

EVANGELINE C. TABULOG JOSEPHINE P. CALAJATE

PGIN ID NO. 1983-360 PGIN ID NO. 1981-1205
Affiant Affiant

SUBSRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day of September, 2017 in Laoag
City, Ilocos Norte. I personally examined the Affiants who understood and voluntarily
executed the above COUNTER AFFIDAVIT with COMMENTS (ON THE PRAYER FOR
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION) and that they exhibited to me their respective competent proof
of identity issued by the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte, indicated below their names.

Doc. No. ______ ;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2017.

Cc: MR. WILFREDO B. REYES

Registry Receipt No. ____________