|
IN
proceedings marred by heated debates and a boycott by
the minority, the House of Representatives formally laid
to rest on Monday the impeachment complaint against
President Arroyo.
The
House, voting 184 in favor, with one absent and one
abstention, adopted the Committee on Justice report that
earlier junked the complaint filed by lawyer Roel Pulido,
former counsel for the rightist Magdalo group.
At the
start of the session, PDP-Laban Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr.
of Makati City asked the House leaders not to dignify
the complaint, with any formal proceedings and in his
speech said, “That complaint was regarded by all, and we
mean all but one of its members—to wit Rep. Egay San
Luis (the lone endorser of the complaint)—as a total
sham.”
Text of
Rep. Locsin’s speech in Op-Ed.
Independent Rep. Roilo Golez of Parañaque manifested on
the floor that the minority will continue to boycott the
proceedings—which was seconded by Nacionalista Party
Rep. Teofisto Guingona III of Bukidnon—and said the
minority cannot participate in the impeachment
proceedings that is a “mockery of Congress and
desecration of the Constitution.”
Locsin
for his part said, “It is argued that a vote by plenary
is mandatory by the Constitution. Even when it is a sham
and mocks a constitutional provision for public
accountability. Are we to believe that our Constitution
makes its own mockery mandatory? We don’t think so.”
Locsin
added he is not asking that a vote by plenary be
ignored. “Merely that a compliance in a unique case
unanimously, and I stress unanimously, viewed as a sham
should come after a decent interval. Say, one year in
archives.”
Party-list Rep. Joel Villanueva of Citizens’ Battle
Against Corruption was surprised that some of his
colleagues stood on the floor and stayed long in the
microphone debating with the majority when they earlier
agreed they will not participate.
On
November 14, two days after ruling that it is sufficient
in form, the committee, voting 43-1, junked the Pulido
complaint, finding it insufficient in substance. The
deliberation was boycotted by the minority. Only San
Luis voted against its dismissal.
Voting
29-7, the committee upheld an earlier decision of Lakas
Rep. Matias Defensor of Quezon City, chairman of the
committee, to return the supplemental complaint of Adel
Tamano, lawyer and spokesman of the United Opposition.
The
walkout was also prompted by the rejection of Guingona’s
motion to disqualify from the proceedings committee
members who attended an October 11 meeting in Malacañang
last month where an alleged bribery took place to “kill”
any impeachment move against the President.
Besides
the Pulido complaint, militant groups filed a second
impeachment complaint against Mrs. Arroyo specifically
accusing her responsible in the extrajudicial killings
besides the various anomalies in her administration.
But
House leaders said it was just an exercise in futility,
citing the one-year prohibition against filing the same
complaint against an official within one year.
The
Pulido complaint accused Mrs. Arroyo of involvement in
the controversial $329-million national broadband
network deal with the Chinese Zhong Xing
Telecommunications Equipment Co. Ltd. (ZTE).
Suplico, et al. turn to SC for relief
By Joel San Juan
Reporter
ILOILO
Vice Gov. Rolex Suplico and several others Monday asked
the Supreme Court to nullify the dismissal by the
secretary-general of the House of Representatives of the
impeachment complaint they filed against resigned
Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Benjamin
Abalos Sr.
At the
same time, the petitioners asked the High Court to order
House secretary-general Roberto Nazareno to accept the
supplemental impeachment complaint they subsequently
filed against President Arroyo.
The
petitioners insisted that the supplemental impeachment
complaint against Mrs. Arroyo along with the Abalos case
should be transmitted to House Speaker Jose de Venecia
Jr. who will in turn refer it to the Committee on
Justice.
The
committee shall determine whether the complaints are
sufficient in form and substance as prescribed by the
Constitution and other applicable rules of procedure.
Suplico
sought Abalos’s impeachment on September 27 based on the
latter’s alleged involvement in the $330-million
national broadband project with China’s ZTE telecom
giant.
The vice
governor cited the statement of former socioeconomic
planning secretary Romulo Neri before a joint Senate
investigation that Abalos had offered him P200 million
in exchange for his approval of the NBN deal.
Suplico
filed the supplemental impeachment complaint against
Mrs. Arroyo based on Neri’s admission that he told the
President about the bribe offer from Abalos.
The
petitioners said they were forced to resort to a
“supplemental” impeachment complaint after an
impeachment complaint against Arroyo was filed by lawyer
Roel Pulido last October 5.
Under
the constitution, an impeachment complaint may be filed
against an official not more than once a year. The
Pulido complaint was found sufficient in form but
deficient in substance and was subsequently dismissed by
the Committee on Justice.
The
House plenary voted to completely bury the complaint
Monday.
“We have
filed a petition here at the Supreme Court for
certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 questioning the
actions of the secretary-general of the House of
Representatives in not accepting the supplement we have
filed to the Abalos impeachment complaint. We are
questioning the acts of the secretary-general. The
secretary-general is not the House of Representatives.
He is a mere clerk, and the power whether or not to
impeach a sitting president must not be given to the
hands of a mere clerk,” Suplico said.
He noted
that the supplemental complaint contains “new
allegations and recital of facts” which could not be
found in the Abalos impeachment complaint.
Suplico
said a supplemental complaint, under the Rules of Court,
is deemed to be part of the original complaint, thus, it
does not at all require a new
endorsement.
Suplico
said Nazareno committed grave abuse of discretion when
he dismissed the Abalos case for being moot and academic
since Abalos has already resigned from his post.
He said
it is not within the power of Nazareno to say who may or
may not be impeached for acts committed while in public
office.
Suplico
insisted that it has not been established that Abalos is
indeed resigned from office, as he could have only filed
a terminal leave of absence.
The
issue, he said, can only be established in a full-blown
impeachment proceeding.
He
contended that if Abalos has indeed resigned from his
post, he can still be impeached and tried for
impeachable offenses, so that he may also be
disqualified from holding any public office.
Suplico’s copetitioners in the case are lawyer Harry
Roque, former presidential adviser on political affairs
Angelito Banayo, Dr. Ma. Dominga Padilla, Father Joe
Dizon, Manuel Baviera and Roel Garcia. |
