The head of the House ethics committee has vowed to observe fairness and impartiality in dealing with an administrative case against Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. in connection with the latter’s alleged use of his influence to help a firm owned by his son and namesake secure a legislative franchise.
Bohol Rep. Eleandro Jesus Madrona said he would not allow himself to be influenced by “anybody or anything” in tackling the administrative case filed by lawyer Roel Pulido against the Speaker.
Pulido, in his complaint, wanted the Pangasinan congressman sanctioned for “unethical conduct” in 1995 and 1997 for allegedly helping Multi-Media Telephony Inc. (MTI) bag a congressional franchise. De Venecia’s son, Joey III is reportedly the founder of MTI.
Joey III is currently at the center of the controversy involving the questionable national broadband network deal between the government and ZTE Corp. of China.
Pulido said the Speaker was lying when he insisted that Joey III had no interest in MTI.
“The MTI website, which operates under the trade name Broadband Philippines, clearly identified De Venecia III as the company’s founder,” Pulido said.
“The term founded clearly proves that De Venecia III had an interest in MTI from the very start – that he, in fact, established the company – contrary to his father’s claim,” Pulido said.
In dealing with the case, Madrona, a lawyer, said he expects his committee to encounter “problems similar to trial court judges handling big cases.”
“But I know that my peers elected me to this position because they know I can handle the job to the best of my knowledge and ability,” he said.
“And like a judge, I can assure that our committee will impose what is right and that due process is observed. But I also hope that there will no other complaints filed before the committee,” he added.
Madrona said his committee’s investigation “will have a conclusion that will be fair, equitable and just in accordance with the law.”
Commenting on Pulido’s complaint, the Speaker said there was no conflict of interest involved because at the time MTI sought a legislative franchise, his son was already “of age.”
He said that under Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft Law, a ranking government official may only be held accountable for conflict of interest if he has “personal interest, including the interest of his wife and emancipated children, but excluding the interest of brothers, sisters, mother, father and a child of age.”
“Very clearly, Jose de Venecia III is of age and independent of his father,” a statement from the Speaker’s office read.
A portion of the document also stated that when MTI’s franchise was approved, the younger De Venecia “was not a shareholder or officer at all.”