House nixes more impeach raps on GMA

November 20, 2007  --  Got something to say?
Print This Post Print This Post

Protesters
MANILA Although there was no likelihood that the majority party will entertain the supplemental impeachment charges filed against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the House of Representatives, the opposition nevertheless went on to furnish supplemental documents to strengthen the impeachment complaint filed earlier by private lawyer Roel Pulido.
The supplemental filers belong to the opposition and civil society groups. The Palace dismissed the filing of new documents as a minor distraction.

In a press briefing, Adel Tamano, spokesman of the United Opposition, said the supplemental documents, including testimony by House Speaker Jose de Venecias son before the Senate and newspaper accounts alleging bribery at the Palace, would be submitted directly to the House justice committee.

Separately, Iloilo Vice Gov. Rolex Suplico and representatives from various civil society groups filed their own amendments to the Pulido complaint against resigned Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos Jr., who has been accused of brokering a $329-million government contract on behalf of a Chinese company.

Like Tamano, Suplico insisted that the supplemental documents be treated as part of the original complaint, since the law allows only one impeachment complaint to be entertained within a year.

But Rep. Matias Defensor, chairman of the justice committee, said attempts to strengthen the Pulido complaint would be useless since the panel would automatically reject them as new complaints.

The rules [say] that only one impeachment case against any impeachable public official can be initiated within a period of one year,” Defensor said. The House majority said any complaint lodged by Tamano would surely land in the trash can.”
The Pulido complaint, lodged last Oct. 5 and endorsed by Laguna Rep. Edgar San Luis, was referred to the committee on justice on Oct. 11.

But Tamano said the opposition documents did not constitute a new complaint, adding he had a written permission from Pulido to amend his complaint.

Suplico said his group was seeking Abalos perpetual disqualification from office, noting he did not resign but took a terminal leave.

The Abalos complaint stands because the Constitution states that an impeached official is prohibited from holding any public office,” Suplico said.

Earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that an impeachment complaint is deemed initiated once it is referred to the House justice committee. It has not ruled on multiple proceedings or the submission of supplemental documents.

From the Palace, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the President would remain focused on governing the nation despite this minor distraction. In the amended complaint, the charges against Arroyo included culpable violations to the Constitution and graft and corruption for allegedly tolerating the commission of a crime over the NBN agreement, which had been forged with Chinas ZTE Corp.

Tamanos complaint also charged the President with bribery after she allegedly abetted, allowed, and countenanced the distribution of bribe money to congressmen for the purposes of dismissing the Pulido complaint and hastening the referral to the justice committee to prevent the filing of a more substantive complaint.”

The President of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Aroyo, by her involvement in the ZTE scandal, and her complicity in the bribe-giving in Malacanang failed to live up to this constitutional yardstick,” according to the amended complaint.
Such accusations undoubtedly render her unfit for public office and subject to the impeachment power of Congress. Specifically her acts constitute bribery, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust, which are impeachable offenses,” it pointed out.

At a press conference before the filing, Tamano insisted that the House had no choice but to accept his pleadings.
If they reject it, I think that should be subject of a vote. It is their ministerial duty, wala silang [they have no] choice but to accept these pleadings that we are filing,” he said.

If you take a look at their rules, in the Constitution, they have no authority to prevent people, to prevent citizens from giving evidence.

Thats basically what we are doing here. Were providing evidence, were trying to make the impeachment proceedings honest and credible,” he said.

It would be a grave abuse of discretion, Tamano said if the House would reject his pleadings enough reason to bring the issue before the Supreme Court.


Posted by News Team | Filed Under Articles/Stories 

Comments

Got something to say?





Authentic Diecast Model Cars