|
FOR
allowing his son to participate in government projects
and contracts, House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. was
sued for graft at the Office of the Ombudsman Monday,
along with his son Jose “Joey” de Venecia III.
Lawyer
Rafael Pulido claimed in his complaint the de Venecias
violated Section 5 of RA 3019, or the Antigraft and
Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits relatives of the
Speaker from getting involve in public projects.
Pulido
alleged that the Speaker, “with obvious criminal
intent,” hid his knowledge of his son’s interest in the
company MTI (Broadband Philippines) when the firm
obtained from Congress a telecommunications franchise in
1995 and when the franchise was amended in 1997 to
include broadband services.
“At both
instances in 1995 and 1997, de Venecia Jr. was holding
fort at the House as Speaker,” he said.
Pulido
is the same lawyer who charged the Speaker with the same
offense at the House Ethics Committee. In the complaint,
he said the de Venecias should stand accused as
coprincipals under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code.
In his
complaint filed with the Ombudsman, Pulido also claimed
that father and son were liable for graft for
intervening in the national broadband network (NBN)
project of government through Joey’s company, Amsterdam
Holdings Inc. (AHI).
“If Jose
de Venecia III is to be believed, Jose de Venecia Jr.
should be held criminally liable for his indispensable
cooperation that allowed Jose de Venecia III to
illegally intervene in a government contract,” he said.
The
lawyer cited the act of the Speaker in organizing a
breakfast meeting between resigned Commission on
Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos and his son in a
“criminal attempt to cooperate on the NBN project.”
He also
cited as a ground de Venecia’s private and public
endorsements of his son’s bid for the NBN project.
Pulido
said the Speaker and his son cannot claim that AHI did
not stand to gain from the position held by de Venecia
Jr. as the highest leader of the House, since AHI’s NBN
proposal “would involve providing broadband services to
the general public, which will require a legislative
franchise.”
Pulido
said “the fact that Jose de Venecia Jr. knew of his
son’s interest in both MTI and AHI could no longer be
denied. In fact, it is a matter of public knowledge that
he publicly hailed his son as the father of broadband in
the Philippines and Southeast Asia, thus revealing his
intimate knowledge of his son’s broadband business,” he
added.
“Despite
this knowledge, Jose de Venecia Jr. concealed his son’s
interest in MTI. This concealment was indispensable for
Jose de Venecia III to obtain a franchise in violation
of RA 3019,” he claimed.
MTI
obtained its legislative franchise through RA 7908 on
February 23, 1995, and had it amended by RA 8332 on June
30, 1997. |
