The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition that sought to compel the Ombudsman to investigate and, if the evidence so warranted, to file impeachment cases against President Aquino and members of his Cabinet in connection with the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
The petition filed by former Manila Councilor Greco Belgica, who ran for senator in the last election but lost, and the President’s own aunt, Margarita “Tingting” Cojuangco, in August last year was only decided by the high court on Tuesday, coming late as Mr. Aquino will step down from office at noon of June 30.
The Supreme Court declared that “the acts compelled by petitioners are not ministerial acts but discretionary acts.”
The petitioners had argued that since the Supreme Court had declared the DAP and the PDAF unconstitutional, government officials who were behind their misuse must be investigated and charged by the Ombudsman.
The DAP consisted of government funds moved from department to department supposedly for need, while the PDAF was the “pork barrel” or discretionary funds given to lawmakers for the supposed benefit of their constituents. Vast amounts from both funds, however, were discovered to have illegally ended up in officials’ pockets.
But the Supreme Court said a mandamus—or order from the high court to reinvestigate a matter—would only be issued on grounds of:
- A clear legal right to the act demanded existed;
- Respondent had a duty to perform the act because it was mandated by law;
- Respondent unlawfully neglected the performance of such duty required by law;
- The act performed was ministerial, not discretionary;
- There was no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
“None of these elements exist and thus mandamus does not lie and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought,” the Supreme Court ruled.