4th Impeachment Ibinasura na!

Subject: 4th Impeachment Ibinasura na! December 3rd 2008, 8:31 am

VOTING 42-8, the House Committee on Justice junked the fourth impeachment complaint against President Arroyo and declared it “insufficient in substance.”

Immediately, Party-list Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros of Akbayan said proimpeachment groups would bring the matter to the Supreme Court, claiming that the committee committed abuse of discretion.

“The House Rules were clearly violated. It is absurd for the House majority to frame the process based on phantom requirements. A decision by the Supreme Court is now necessary to protect the rule of law.”

Ending marathon hearings that started last week, the committee headed by Lakas Rep. Matias Defensor of Quezon City will start preparing the committee report to be transmitted to the House Committee on Rules, which will schedule its submission to the chamber in plenary session.

There, House members will vote whether to reverse the justice committee’s decision. One-third vote, or at least 80 congressmen, is needed to adopt or reject it.

Emerging from the Andaya Hall of the House of Representatives, Lakas Rep. Jose de Venecia Jr. of Pangasinan, the former loyal ally-turned-bitter enemy of Mrs. Arroyo, declared: “Wala ng pag-asa ang impeachment sa bayan na ito!”

De Venecia was among the endorsers of the complaint which was filed by, among others, his son, Jose III, who spilled the beans in the alleged anomalous national broadband (NBN) network deal with a Chinese company.

The young de Venecia’s testimonies before the Senate later led to the ouster of his father as House Speaker.

Lakas Rep. Edcel Lagman laughed off de Venecia’s declaration, recalling how the former Speaker praised the Committee on Justice for dismissing the past impeachment complaints filed against Mrs. Arroyo.

“Noong siya ay Speaker tatlong impeachment ang na-dismiss for insufficiency in substance. At kung ating titingnan ang records ng House, pinuri pa niya ang Committee on Justice pagkatapos ma-dismiss ang complaint at ma-declare na insufficient in substance ang mga naunang complaint. Eh sa ngayon, nasa iba siyang banda, kaya iyon ang sinasabi niya,” Lagman told the BusinessMirror in an interview.

Lagman, justice committee vice chairman, in his summation of arguments supporting that the impeachment complaint is not sufficient in substance, said the purported impeachable offenses in the complaint can be classified into two groups for practical and judicious disposition—recycled grounds and new alleged causes of action.

Lagman said the recycled and rehashed grounds previously adjudicated and dismissed in the prior impeachment cases in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

These are the following:

• The NBN deal with ZTE Corp., which was alleged in the 2007 Pulido complaint and subsequently dismissed for insufficiency in substance;

• The “Hello, Garci” recordings and alleged 2004 electoral fraud, which were alleged in the 2005 Lozano complaint and also dismissed for insufficiency in substance;

• The fertilizer scam, which was alleged in the 2006 Corpin, et al., impeachment case and also dismissed for insufficiency in substance;

• The Northrail contract, which was alleged in the 2006 Corpin, et al., impeachment case and similarly dismissed for insufficiency in substance; and

• Extrajudicial and political killings alleged in the 2006 Corpin, et al., complaint and, likewise, dismissed for insufficiency in substance.

“These recycled and rehashed impeachable offenses are already barred by res judicata, or prior judgments, in previous impeachment cases,” said Lagman.

The new causes of action not alleged or ventilated in previous impeachment proceedings are the following:

• Authorizing the distribution of bribe money to members of Congress in exchange for the hasty referral of the Pulido impeachment complaint to prevent the filing of a genuine impeachment complaint;

• Selling the country’s gold reserve in Mount Diwalwal to the already controversial ZTE Corp. under an agreement that is grossly disadvantageous to the country’s interest; and

• Allowing, encouraging, abetting or otherwise acquiescing to the illegal and improper use of at least P5 billion in loans obtained by the Rural Credit Guarantee Corp. to fund her 2004 electoral campaign and furthering political patronage, in violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act 3019.

Defensor, for his part, said what the complainants are citing as evidence in their complaints are all newspaper clippings.

“Ang sabi nga namin hindi na-meet ang requirement ng substance ng recital of facts stating the offense committed determinable by the Committee on Justice.”

But House Minority Leader Ronaldo Zamora said the complaint is sufficient in substance.

“I feel we have sufficiently established and shown the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint…their presentation was in our view contrary to the rules of procedure in impeachment proceedings,” said Zamora during the proceedings and prior to the voting.

Zamora said it is in the interest of the nation and Mrs. Arroyo herself to answer these charges and have a day in court.

“Hindi ba mali ang gagawin natin na hindi natin pasasagutin ang Pangulo? Hindi ba mali na ang maiiwan sa isip ng mga tao ang paratang ng mga complainants…ng mga kasama natin sa House of Representatives? Hindi ba parang mali iyan?” Zamora asked.

After the junking of the fourth impeachment case against the President in as many years, Speaker Prospero Nograles said: “We have no other meaningful option but to move on.”

Nograles said it is the sense of “the House of the People that impeachment is ill-timed in the face of the global crisis and will only exacerbate conditions from bad to worse.

“Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. That’s the reason why we saw members of Congress who are not even lawyers participating in a public and transparent proceedings.

“The House Committee on Justice, chaired by Rep. Matt Defensor did what was mandated under the Constitution and followed to the letter the Rules on Impeachment of the House of Representatives.

“The entire proceeding was done in an open and transparent manner, fully covered live by the trimedia from the filing of the complaint up to the actual public deliberation, until it was finally proven to have failed the constitutional test of sufficiency in substance.” (With J. Beato)