1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila



GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. G.R. NO.______________
BELGICA, REUBEN M. ABANTE,
JOSE L. GONZALEZ and FOR:
MANDAMUS
QUINTIN PAREDESSAN DIEGO,
Petitioners,

-versus-

MARIA GRACIA PULIDO-TAN,
Chairmanand Chief Executive
Officer,CommissiononAudit;
SUSANA P. GARCIA, Director,
Special Audits Office,
Respondents.
X- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -X



PETITION


COME NOW, Petitioners, thru counsel, unto this Honorable
Court, respectfully aver, that



I. PROLOGUE

2


1.1. The Commission on Audit is the guardian ofpublic funds. It is
tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use
of the governments, and ultimately the peoples, property. The
exercise of its general audit power is among the
constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the
check and balance system inherent in our form
of government (Delos Santos, et al. v. COA, G.R. No. 198457,
August 13, 2013, citing Veloso v. COA, G.R. No. 193677, September
6, 2001, 656 SCRA 767, 776)


1.2. As explicitly stated in Article IX-D, Section 2(1), 1987
Constitution,the COA has the power, authority,
andduty to examine, audit, and settle all
accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts,
and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the
government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies,
or instrumentalities, including government-
owned and controlled corporations with
original charters, and on post-audit basis: (a)
constitutional bodies, commissions and offices
that have been granted fiscal autonomy under
this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges
and universities; (c) other government-owned
and controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries; and (d) such other non-
governmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through
the government, which are required by law or
the granting institution to submit to such audit
as a condition of subsidy or equity.


In the exercise thereof, it is vested with exclusive authority to
define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques
and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting
and auditing rules and regulations, INCLUDING
THOSE FOR THE PREVENTION AND DISALLOWANCE OF
IRREGULAR, UNNECESSARY, EXCESSIVE, EXTRAVAGANT,
OR UNCONSCIONABLE EXPENDITURES, OR USES OF
GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND PROPERTIES. (Art. IX-D, Sec. 2(2),
1987 Constitution;see also Sec. 11(2), Chapter 4, E.O. 292)


(Bold-face, italics and underlining, supplied.)
3



1.3. Under Section 2, Revised Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Audit, the Chairman asChief Executive Officer of the
Commission shall (1) CONTROL AND SUPERVISE THE
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMISSION, (2)
DIRECT AND MANAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
EXECUTION OF POLICIES, STANDARDS, RULES AND
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION and
(3) CONTROL AND SUPERVISETHE AUDIT OF HIGHLY
TECHNICAL OR CONFIDENTIAL TRANSACTIONS OR
ACCOUNTS OF ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY.


(Bold-face and underlining, ours.)




II. NATURE and basis OF THE PETITION


2.1. This petition for Mandamus is anchored on Rule 65, Sec. 3,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, viz:


xxx.When any tribunal, board, officer
or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station xxx,
and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, the person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent, immediately
or at some other time to be specified by
the court, to do the act required to be
done to protect the rights of the
petitioner by reason of the wrongful
acts of the respondent. xxx.


(Bold-face anditalics, supplied.)


4

and Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution which confers upon
the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus. (Chavez v.
PCCG, infra)


2.2. In Chavez v. PCCG (G.R. No. 130716, December 9,
1998), the Court per Panganiban, J.,held that there had been
instances where petitioners resort to a
mandamus proceeding, seeking to enforce a
public right as well as to compel performance of
a public duty mandated by no less than the
fundamental law, was upheld by the Supreme
Court such asin Tanada v. Tuvera (136 SCRA 27, 36-
37, April 24, 1985 per Escolin, J. and in Legaspi v. Civil Service
Commission. (150 SCRA 530, 536, May 29, 1987)


(Bold-face, underlining and emphasis, ours.)



III. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION


3.1. This petition is timely filedsince respondents
areCONTINUOUSLYNEGLECTING the performance of
imperativepublic duties, NAMELY,the (1)dutyto issue or cause
to be issued Notices of Disallowance(NDs)of the
disallowed 6.156 billionin Priority development
assistance funds (PDAFs),and,the(2) duty to act on
therequest for copies of notices served, if any.


Such continuous refusal to perform an act enjoined by law as a
duty, may be questioned anytime for as long as the NDs remained
unissued or the request for copies of notices served, if any, is not
addressed.



IV. THE PARTIES


4.1. Petitioner Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgicais a civic-
conscious citizen, taxpayer, anti-corruption advocate, and former
Manila City Councilor. He may be served with the processes of the
Honorable Court at 262 San Rafael St., San Miguel, Manila.
5



4.2. Petitioner Reuben M. Abante is a Christian bishop, civic-
conscious citizen, and taxpayer. He may be served with the processes
of the Honorable Court at 89 ROTC Hunters St., Tatalon, Quezon City.


4.3. Petitioner Jose L. Gonzalez is a civic-minded citizen, anti-
corruption advocate, and taxpayer. He may be served with the
processes of the Honorable Court at 80 Don Victorino St., Don Antonio
Heights, Quezon City.


4.4. Petitioner Quintin Paredes San Diego is a civic-
mindedcitizen, anti-corruption advocate, and taxpayer. He may be
served with the processes of the Honorable Court at 101 Panay
Avenue, Quezon City.


4.5. Respondent Maria Gracia Pulido-Tan is the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Commission on Auditwho authorized the
holding of a special audit of the Priority Development Assistance
Funds covering the period 2007 to 2009. She may be served with the
processes of the Honorable Court at the Office of the Chairman,
Commission on Audit, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.


4.6. Respondent Susana P. Garcia is the Director, Special
Audits Office, Commission on Audit. It was her office that
actuallyconducted the audit of the PDAFs and the Various
Infrastructures involving Local Projects. She may be served with the
processes of the Honorable Court at the aforesaid office,
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.



V. ANTECEDENTS


5.1. During the oral arguments of the consolidated cases
(Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566) on the Pork Barrel System held
on 8 October 2013, COA Chairman Maria Grace Pulido-Tantold the
Supreme Court that In respect to what they found
out in their 2007 to 2009 report, they are in the
process of issuing the Notices of Disallowance.
Thus

xxx.
6


Justice Bersamin:

Thank you Chief. Chairman,
Chairman Pulido Tan again. I am just
curious Has the COA to your knowledge
ever disallowed any PDAF allocation,
whether soft or hard, that a
Congressman or a Senator has directed?

Chairperson Pulido Tan:

Yes, Your Honor. In respect of what
we found out in 2007 to 2009 report, we
are in the process of issuing the Notices
of Disallowance.xxx.

xxx.

Justice Bersamin:

So, I will presume from your answer
that all these transactions, itong mga
Napoles na sinasabi ha, Im not
condemning anyone or making a
judgment. Kung hindi dumaan sa
Procurement Law, technically speaking,
strictly speaking, literally speaking,
would be disallowed.

Chairperson Pulido Tan:

Opo, opo, in the process na po yung
issuance.

Justice Bersamin:

So, sa tantya mo, as you stand there
now, how many have been disallowed?

Chairman Pulido Tan:

Ah, Sir, Your Honor, Im sorry, the
procedure is that we issue a Notice of
Disallowance per transaction. So theres
going to be thousands and thousands of
disallowances given the scope of the
7

audit. In terms of the amount, Your
Honor, we would estimate about six (6)
billion worth of disallowances that
will be made within the year.

xxx.


(Bold-face, underlining and emphasis,ours.)


Copies of Pages 120-122 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes are
hereto attached as ANNEX B with sub-markings (B-1 and B-2).


5.2. Thru a letter, petitioner Belgica remindedCOA Chairman and
CEO Maria Gracia Pulido-Tan of the need to issue the NDs which she
promised the Supreme Court and the people, during the oral
arguments in the Belgica, et al. v. Ochoa, et al., consolidated cases
last 8 October 2013, relative to the misused PDAFs, and in addition,
requested for copies of notices served. Thus

xxx

Dear Chairperson Tan:

Blessings.

We thank you for promising during the
Oral Arguments streamed nationwide that
your office will be issuing Notices of
Disallowance to the PDAF-tainted Senators,
Congressmen, and Executive officials.

We would like to remind the Chairperson
however, that the petitioners and the
millions of Filipinos who heard and held on
to the promise the Chairperson gave the
Court has been long waiting for its (sic)
issuance. The Supreme Court has already
struck down by a unanimous vote, the Pork
Barrel. As such, we eagerly await the
fulfilment of the promise.

For the honor of your word and the
office that you chair, may we ask the
chairperson to fulfill her duty of satisfying
8

the promise she gave the Filipino people under
oath at the Supreme Court.

If the notices have been served without
the knowledge of the petitioners, may we ask
to be furnished a copy of the notices
sent.Hoping for your prompt action on this
request.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

(Sgd.) GRECO BELGICA
Main Petitioner, G.R. No. 208566
SC Decision on the Pork Barrel System

(Bold-face, and underlining, ours.)


Copy of the aforesaid letter is hereto attached as ANNEXC.


5.3.Unfortunately, the request was not even entertained in
violation of Republic Act No. 6713 and other issuances.As to what
impelled respondents to act the way they did, is a mystery to the
petitioners.


Copy of the Press Statement on the aforesaid audit report dated 16
August 2013,issued by the Office of the Chairman, COA, is hereto
attached as ANNEX D with sub-markings (D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-4)


5.4. Suffice it to say that respondents neglect of theirpublic
duties constitutes a serious breach of the mandate of the Commission
on Audit under the Constitution,the Revised Administrative Code, as
well as the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA, as well as
the public right of the petitioners.


In Legaspi, supra, what was considered as public concern is
the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure
that government positions requiring civil service
eligibility are occupied only by persons who are
eligible. In Chavez, supra, the Supreme Court
emphasized that In general, writings coming
into the hands of public officers in connection
9

with their official functions must be accessible
to the public, consistent with the policy of
transparency of governmental affairs. This
principle is aimed at affording the people an
opportunity to determine whether those to
whom they have entrusted the affairs of the
government are honestly, faithfully and
competently performing their functions as
public servants. Undeniably, the essence of
democracy lies in the free flow of thought, but
thoughts and ideas must be well-informed so
that the public would gain a better perspective
of vital issues confronting them and, thus, be
able to criticize as well as participate in the
affair of the government in a responsible,
reasonable and effective manner.


5.5. Given the exceptional character of the situation, the
unprecedented frauds and raids of the treasury, the incalculable injury
suffered by the Nation and the petitioners, as well asthe assertion of
grave violation of the law and the Constitution attributable to the
respondents,and there being noother plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners posture and decision
to bring suit could notbe unwarranted.




VI. ISSUES


6.1.The issues in this proceeding are as follows:


A. Procedural


1. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE LEGAL
STANDING TO SUE.


2. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THE PROCEEDING.


10

3. WHETHER THERE IS A JUSTICIABLE CASE
OR CONTROVERSY RIPE FOR JUDICIAL
RESOLUTION.



B. Substantive


4. WHETHER RESPONDENTS NEGLECT OF
THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES ISCOMPELLABLE BY
MANDAMUS.



VII. ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION


FIRST ISSUE: Petitioners standing


7.1. Petitioners submit that they have locus
standi to institute this proceeding for
mandamus since as citizens, they have aclear
personal stake or existingINTERESTover the
issuance ofthe notices of disallowance, and
areinspired by and genuinelyconcern of, efforts
of unbiased institutionstospeedilyrecover the
disallowed PHP 6.156 Billion PDAFs, as mandated by
law.Being real contributors to the coffers of
the National Treasury, petitioners do not only
have such personal stake over the funds, but are
duty-bound to secure the samefor the survival
of the life of the Nation.


It is clear that the petition on its face shows that the petitioners
have interest in the object of the proceeding. In Tanada (G.R. No. L-
63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27, 36) the High Court held, viz:


when thequestion is one of public
right and the object of the mandamus is to
procure the enforcement of a public duty,
the people are regarded as the real party in
interest and the relator at whose
instigation the proceedings are instituted
need not show that he has any legal or
11

special interest in the result, it being
sufficient that he is a citizen and as such
interested in the execution of the laws


(Bold-face, supplied.)


It is no less obvious that the petitioners in
this proceeding have strongly asserted that
they are citizens and as such, interested in the
execution of the laws particularly Section 2 (1)
and (2), Article IX-D of the Constitution and
Section 11 (1) and (2), Chapter 4, Executive Order No.
292, on the general audit power of the
commission on audit; Sections 1 and 2, Rule II, 2009
Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on
Audit on the function of the chairman as chief
executive officer of the commission; and Section 7,
Article III of the Bill of Rights on the peoples
right to information on matters of public
concern, in relation to Section 28, Article II of
the Constitution on the state policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest.


Bolstering this position is Republic Act No. 6713 which states
that public officials and employees are mandated
to provide information on their policies and
procedures in clear and understandable
language, and ensure openness of information,
public consultations and hearings whenever
appropriate.xxx(Chavez, id.)


As in Belgica, the petitioners in this proceeding for mandamus
have come before this Honorable Court in their respective capacities
as citizens-taxpayers and strongly assert that they contribute to the
coffers of the National Treasury. Likewise, they contend that they are
the real victims of the PDAFs scam, who will ultimately bear the loss
hence, possess the requisite locus standi to bring this suit in the
national interest.


In fine, the fact that the petitioners are citizens satisfies the
requirement of personal interest. In Tuvera, the peoples right to be
12

informed under the 1973 Constitution (Article IV, Section 6) was
invoked in order to compel the publication in the Official Gazette of
various presidential decrees, letters of instructions and other
presidential issuances.


But even as taxpayers, the petitioners have locus standi to bring
the suit. As stressed by the High Court in Tan v. Macapagal (43 SCRA
677 (1972)) and Sanidad v. Comelec (73 SCRA 333 (1976)), as
regards taxpayers suits, the Court enjoys the
open discretion to entertain the same or not.


In University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. NLRC (218 SCRA
65), it was held that While mandamus does not issue to
direct an official with discretionary power, it
may issue, where there has been unreasonable
delay, to compel him to act xxx.

As respondents, specifically, the Provincial
Governor, are duty bound not only to observe,
but even to enforce the law, they may properly
be compelled by mandamus to remove or rectify
an unlawful act if to do so is within their
official competence, at the instance of a
taxpayer. (Miguel v. Zulueta, 16 SCRA 860)


Be that as it may, the Supreme Court may
relax the standing requirement since the object
of the proceeding is of transcendental
importance to the public, of overreaching
significance to society; and the exceptional
character and of paramount public interest. (see
Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R.
No. 157870, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 421, cited in Belgica .
Ochoa, id.)



SECOND ISSUE:Courts jurisdiction


13

7.2. It is indubitable that the Honorable Court has jurisdiction
over the case at bar. This finds support in Section 5, Article VIII of the
Constitution, viz:

xxx. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over
cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.

xxx.


It is worthy of note that in our tripartite form of government, the
Supreme Court has the final say as to what the law is on a given set of
facts and no other; its decisions form part of the legal system of the
Philippines as decreed in the Civil Code.

In Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co. (57 Phil. 600
(1932), it was emphasized

The Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands represents one of the three divisions
of power in our government. It is judicial
power only which is exercised by the Supreme
Court, just as the Supreme Court, as the
guardian of constitutional rights, should
not sanction usurpations by any other
department of the government, so it should
strictly confine its own sphere of influence
to the powers expressly or by implication
conferred on it by the Organic Act. xxx.

(Bold-face, supplied.)

14

Suffice it to say that there is clear neglect
of publicduties on respondents part setting the
stage for the invocation of petitioners public
right, anchored on constitutional principles.

Third issuE: Actual case or controversy andripeness

The continuous NEGLECTBY the respondents OF
BELGICAs request aggravated by the non-issuance
of the Notices of disallowance - which implies an
active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on
one side and a denial thereof on the other
concerning a real question or issue evidences a
justiciable case or controversy ripe for judicial
resolution. (see PAL v. NLRC, 92 SCAD 688)

In Belgica, it was pronounced, viz:

Recently, or in July of the present year,
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
began its probe into allegations that the
government has been defrauded of some P10
Billion over the past 10 years by a syndicate
using funds from the pork barrel of
lawmakers and various government agencies
for scores of ghost projects. xxx. The
investigation was spawned by sworn
affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers who
declared that JLN Corporation JLN
standing for Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles)
had swindled billions of pesos from the
public coffers for ghost projects using no
fewer than 20 dummy NGOs for an entire
decade. While the NGOs were supposedly the
ultimate recipients of PDAF funds, the
whistle-blowers declared that the money
was diverted into Napoles private accounts
15

xxx. Thus, after its investigation on the
Napoles controversy, criminal complaints
were filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman, charging five (5) lawmakers for
Plunder, and three (3) other lawmakers for
Malversation, Direct Bribery, Violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Also recommended to be charged in the
complaints are some of the lawmakers chiefs-
of- staff or representatives, the heads and
other officials of three(3) implementing
agencies, and the several presidents of the
NGOs set up by Napoles xxx.

ON AUGUST 16, 2013, THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA) RELEASED THE RESULTS OF A THREE-
YEAR AUDIT INVESTIGATION XXX COVERING THE
USE OF LEGISLATORS pdaf FROM 2007 TO 2009, OR
DURING THE LAST THREE (3) YEARS OF THE ARROYO
ADMINISTRATION. THE PURPOSE OF THE AUDIT WAS
TO DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY OF THE RELEASES OF
FUNDS UNDER PDAF AND THE VARIOUS INFRA
INFRASTRUCTURES INCLUDING LOCAL PROJECTS
(vilp) XXX BY THE DBM, THE APPLICATION OF THESE
FUNDS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROJECTS BY THE APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTING
AGENCIES AND SEVERAL GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS (GOCCS) XXX. The
total releases covered by the audit
amounted to php 8.374 billion in pdaf and php
32.664 billion in vilp, representing 58% and 32%,
respectively, of the total pdaf and vilp
releases that were found to have been made
nationwide during the audit period xxx.
Accordingly, the coas findings contained in
its report no. 2012-03 (COA report) xxx were
made public, the highlights of which are as
follows:

16

-Amounts released for projects
identified by a considerable number
of legislators significantly exceeded
their respective allocations

-amounts were released for projects
outside of legislative districts of
sponsoring members of the house of
representatives

-total vilp releases for the period
exceeded the total amount
appropriated under the 2007 to 2009
gaas

-infrastructure projects were
constructed on private lots
without those having been turned
over to the government

-significant amounts were released
to implementing agencies without
the latters endorsement and
without considering their mandated
functions, administrative and
technical capabilities to implement
projects

-implementation of most livelihood
projects was not undertaken by the
implementing agencies themselves but
by ngoS endorsed by the proponent
legislators to which the funds were
transferred

17

-the funds were transferred to the
ngos inspite of the absence of any
appropriation law or ordinance

-selection of the ngos was not
compliant with law and regulations

-eighty-two (82) ngos entrusted with
implementation of seven hundred
seventy two (772) projects amount to
p6.156 billion were either found
questionable, or submitted
questionable spurious documents, or
failed to liquidate in whole or in
part their utilization of the funds

-procurement by the ngos, as well as
some implementing agencies of goods
and services reportedly used in the
projects were not compliant with
law

xxx.

(Bold-face and underlining, ours.)

Petitioners can no less agree with the High Court; the one true
Conscience of the Government.

Fourth issue:Respondents neglect of duties compellable by
mandamus


18

As already intimated, the act or acts demanded of the
respondents areimperative duties imposed by the 1987 Charter, the
Revised Administrative Code, R.A. 6713, the 2009 Rules of Procedure
of the Commission on Audit, and the Government Auditing Code. It
follows therefore, that such neglect cannot be countenanced.
Petitioners are clearly entitled to the writ inasmuch as all the
ingredients for its issuance are attendant as heretofore discussed.


It is crystal clear that the tenacity of the respondents not to issue
the NDs, despite being reminded of their duties/promise, constitutes
DEFIANCE of the commands of the FUNDAMENTAL LAW, the
ADMINISTRATVE CODE, and REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713, General
Auditing Code, and the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Audit, warrants the issuance of such writ.

It is worthy of note that upon the release of the aforesaid audit
report, it behooves the respondents to issue the NDs. It bears stating
that the duty of a public official is to abide with the mandate of the
Constitution and the law, and not to protect or hide certain misconduct
in office of erring public officials, instead of acting as guardian of public
funds. The blatant disregard of public duties, and her own promise to
the Supreme Court to issue thousands of NDs, smacks of deception
on her part, is therefore, compellable thru said writ.

The COA Chief owes it to the Filipino people that certain degree
of honesty and integrity, by showing transparency, in all transactions in
the government, rather than protecting certain alleged misconduct.
The Constitution being the vanguard of all rights must not be trampled
upon by a head of constitutional commission.It is for this and the
foregoing reasons, that the institution of this proceeding should be
upheld by the Honorable Court. Their inexcusable neglect, paranoia-
like fear, and indifference is anathema to oursystem of public
accountability and to the principle of transparency enshrined in the
Constitution.

Respondents seemed to gloss over the fact
that the release of the audit report on the PDAFs
and VILP on 16 August 2013 paved the way for the
19

issuance of thousands of notices of disallowance
against those who have deviated course, so to
speak.The exceptional character of the situation
favoured an interpretation that the duties have
ceased to be discretionary.

As a general rule, the performance of an official act or duty which
necessarily involves the exercise of discretion or judgment cannot be
compelled by mandamus. Xxx THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY IN
CASES WHERE THERE IS GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
MANIFEST INJUSTICE OR PALPABLE EXCESS OF
AUTHORITY. Ordinarily, mandamuswill not prosper to compel a
discretionary act.BUT WHERE THERE IS GROSS ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, MANIFEST INJUSTICE OR PALPABLE EXCESS
OF AUTHORITY EQUIVALENT TO DENIAL OF SETTLED
RIGHT TO WHICH PETITIONERs IS ENTITLED, AND THERE
IS NO OTHER PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY,
THE WRIT SHALL ISSUE.(Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman, 307
SCRA 104) The same situation obtains in the case at bar.

(Emphasis, ours.)

Likewise, mandamus is available to compel the
doing of an act SPECIFICALLY enjoined by law as a
duty. (see Mateo v. CA, 196 SCRA 280)

(Emphasis, ours.)

In Chavez v. PCGG, supra, the High Court ruled that
Mandamus xxx is a proper recourse for a citizen
to enforce a public right (as in this proceeding)
and to compel the performance of a public duty,
most especially when mandated by the
Constitution.

20

VIII. RELIEF

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed of the Honorable Court to (1) grant this petition and
(2) issue a writ of mandamus compelling the
issuance of thousands of notices of disallowance
on the PDAFs for the total amount of php 6.156
billion, and covering the period 2007 to 2009, to
the respective lawmakers and other PUBLIC
officials, ngos AND THEIR OFFICERS, AND ALL PERSONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISUSE THEREOF, with
dispatch;and (3)to furnish the petitioners copies
thereof.

Other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the premises are also
being prayed for.

Manila, June 7, 2014.

LUNA LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Petitioners
#412 FEMII Bldg. (Annex)
Andres Soriano, Jr. Ave.,
IntramurosManila

By:


MANUELITO R. LUNA
Roll of Attorneys No. 42073
IBP No. 896967; Z.C.; 01-07-13
PTR No. 0759820; ZC; 01-07-13
MCLE No. 0002072 issued on June14, 2011
([email protected])


Copy furnished:
CHAIRMAN MARIA GRACIA PULIDO-TAN
21

Office of the Chairman, COA
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City

DIRECTOR SUSANA P. GARCIA
Special Audits Office, COA
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City


SOL. GEN. FRANCIS JARDELEZA
Office of the Solicitor General
Amorsolo St., Legaspi Vill., Makati City


EXPLANATION

The foregoing Petition for Mandamus is being served by registered
mail with return card in view of the impracticability of personal service
due to lack of personnel, time and distance involved.


MANUELITO R. LUNA