Saturday, 29 September 2018

Complaint Affidavit RE: SEC

Emelino T Maestro
76 Timog Avenue, Unit 203 STG Corporate Centre, Sacred Heart, Quezon City 1103
TIN 129 596 230 00000

Complaint Affidavit
For the Urgent and Favourable Action of Honourable Ombudsman, c/o
President Rodrigo R Duterte, thru The Discipline Office
MalacaƱang, Manila and To All Whom It May Concern

I appeal that these issues shall be resolved within the set forth due date as the Republic Act 11032 provides and that the legal doctrine ‘Speedy Resolution’ mandates,
  1. Whether the Office of the SEC Chairman, Mr. Emilio Aquino, has the legal obligation to accept and receive letters, petitions, complaints, etc.
  2. Whether the Office of the SEC Chairman, Mr. Emilio Aquino, has the legal duty to resolve issues and problems brought to his attention.
  3. Whether the decision rendered by the computer programs that clearly and completely contradicted to the Corporation Code and the rules issued under its authority is valid and enforceable is valid and enforceable
  4. Whether a Partnership that remained inactive for the past 25 years should be delisted from the ‘active’ list due to failure to comply with the governing rules that granted its registration and existence.
  5. Whether the ‘Ease of Doing Business’ law is violated by way of delegating the acts that needed to be performed and extinguished by a government official and employee to computer software and program.

Under Republic Act 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the infractions committed by all government officials including their private cohorts.
The Discipline Office, pursuant to the 1987 Administrative Code, has an exclusive and administrative control and supervision over the behaviours and actions of all government officials and employees who are reporting under the Executive Branch of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
All legal and judicial proceedings shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts and investigating bodies located in Quezon City.
  1. After learning the partnership named ‘Emelino T Maestro, CPA Co’ is still existing even though, in truth, one month after its inception, the majority of the partners therein, informed Emelino T Maestro that they are no longer interested to pursue the operation of the said partnership. That was 25 years ago. I
  2. I learnt that corporations that remained dormant for the past 5 years shall have their articles of incorporation automatically canceller and revoked by the SEC. For this reason, I believe that the articles of partnership of the said partnership had also been cancelled and revoked.
  3. However, when I was registering a corporation that will bear my name ‘, Incorporated’, I was advised that I can’t register it for the reason that a similar name had already been registered with the SEC. For this purpose, I immediately executed an Affidavit stating among others that the said partnership is no longer existing and a consent of mine is given to the said corporation to use it (Annex A).
  4. The reaction of the SEC to my Affidavit is so perplexing. For the convenience of this Honourable Office, I attached an Incident Report wherein this Honourable Office can gauge what type of services that the SEC and its officials are providing to the public (Annex B).
  5. For the record, my purpose of closing down the files of the said partnership to help and assist the SEC in reducing its files and records. I also attached hereto the requirements that the SEC gave me to revoke the articles of partnership (Annex C) and its Citizen Charter (Annex D). I would like to inform formally this Honourable Office that I can no longer tract and locate the persons whom I once called as my partners.
  6. I just wanted to rescind the said articles of partnership and the SEC to allow me to use my name as a name of my corporation. I appeal that I should not be deprived to access the available opportunities, income and wealth that our constitution guarantees to every independent and self-reliant Filipino.
  1. The Office of the SEC Chairman knowingly failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to receive my letter that exposes the malfunctioning of SEC’s computer program.
  2. I am registering the name ‘WOWSIARGAO Corp.’ but its computer program said that it cannot be registered because a similar name was already registered with the SEC (Annex E). I found out that the similar name is ‘G WASHERS LAUNDRY STATION CO.’
  3. The above names definitely are neither identical nor similar ones. When I brought a letter about this to the Office of the SEC Chairman, his subordinates knowingly failed and refused to accept and receive it. 
  4. I understand that such act is penalised under the provisions of Republic Act 6713, RA 9485 and RA 11032.
  5. What I want is for these people to respect and obey the laws. I encourage them to reply to my request within the prescribed period.
I earnestly sought that a preliminary investigation shall immediately be commenced and later on, concluded. A speedy resolution of this case shall knowingly pursued, pursuant to the Philippine Constitution and related laws thereto.
Non forum shopping. 
I certify under oath that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi- judicial agency, and that to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending thereon; that should I learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending in aforementioned court, tribunal or agency, I promise to notify this Honourable Office of the present status thereof within five (5) days from my notice of the same; and that I fully understand that failure on my part to comply with the foregoing requirements shall be cause for the dismissal of the case.
On the date shown hereunder and to attest my personal conviction and belief as they are shown above, I affix my signature below.


First name
Middle name
Last name
Republic of the Philippines)
In the ________________) s.s.
BEFORE ME, the signatory/ies, personally appeared and known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on ___________________________.


CC: Civil Service Commission
Office of the Ombudsman

1. RA 9003 is applied when this and its Annexes were printed.
2. Due to lack of manpower, copies hereof were sent via registered mail (PhilPost).

Friday, 14 September 2018

The House of Representatives' 2018 Proposed Tax Amnesty

he 2018 Tax Amnesty (House Bill 3832) being proposed by the Congress contained the same provisions that Republic Act 9480, aka 2005 Tax Amnesty. Believe me if we are going to copy cat the 2005 Tax Amnesty and apply its provisions to 2018 Tax Amnesty, chaos, confusion and corruption will still exist. The purpose of giving tax amnesty is to give a PEACE OF MIND to all Taxpayers in the Philippines. The provisions of the 2005 Tax Amnesty had been rejected by the Former President Gloria M Arroyo, by way of ignoring the said law. Now let us see how she will ferry with the same provisions when the 2018 proposed Tax Amnesty reached her desk. I am so disappointed because the 2018 Tax Amnesty Proposal provided so many areas for the graft and corruption to continue and persist. One of which is its cut-off date. Instead of December 31, 2017 as its cut-off date, the said House Bill shortened it from January 1, 2006 up to June 30, 2016. I find it to be so comical and ridiculous because it will open up opportunities for grafters and corruptors in the BIR to profit from uncovered taxable periods. I believe that such House Bill is contrary to the 1987 Philippine Constitution because it is not uniform and equitable. It denied and deprived those Estates that failed to file an estate tax return and pay the tax due thereon for the period prior to January 1, 2006. Please subscribe for I will expose the weaknesses of the 2018 Tax Amnesty.'