It’s final: House junks impeachment case against GMA

The House of Representatives threw out the impeachment complaint against President Arroyo last night.

Voting 184-1 with one abstention, the House in plenary session affirmed the justice committee’s decision to dismiss the complaint.

Lawmakers approved Committee Report 096 of Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, panel chairman, declaring the complaint of lawyer Roel Pulido “sufficient in form” but extremely wanting in substance.

Opposition members Roilo Golez, Teofisto Guingona III, Liza Maza, Rufus Rodriguez and Crispin Beltran said they will not participate in the voting, but grabbed the microphones to make their protest known.

“It is not the duty of the minority to fight for what we have believed from the start is a sham complaint,” said Golez, a deputy minority leader.

“The opposition is not a mindless opposition that would be drawn into a battle that is not of its own making,” he said.

In his sponsorship speech, Defensor said the complaint deserved to be dismissed as the Constitution requires that betrayal of public trust must be by “grossness, oppressiveness, inexcusableness or fruitlessness” to warrant the President’s removal.

“The required graveness with respect to the alleged charges against the President never existed,” he said.

Defensor said the complainants must accept defeat once the required one-third vote (80 lawmakers) is not mustered to send the complaint to the Senate for trial.

“It is but right that if the one-third vote of all members of the House is not guaranteed despite this liberal constitutional concession, those for impeachment must accept the results without rancor or misgivings,” he said.

“It is unfair to say that the opposition slept on their job in not filing the complaint ahead of anyone else. Nothing of national significance has arisen to unseat the president. There is no reason for this nation to move against her. More so, there is no reason for the members of this House to impeach her.”

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, justice committee vice chairman, said the Pulido complaint did not pass the requirement of substance which should have carried the “recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.”

“The complaint does not pass the test required by Section 4 of Rule III (of House rules),” he said.

“It is grossly insufficient in substance. It is bereft of the requisite ultimate facts. It is inordinately bare like a centerfold which may excite but does not excel.”

Lagman said while the complaint used the catch-all phrase “Betrayal of public trust,” it “failed to allege overt acts on the part of the President which would constitute the averred impeachable offense.”

The statements saying Mrs. Arroyo “connived” with resigned election chief Benjamin Abalos and Speaker Jose de Venecia over the ZTE contract and later carried it out are “not factual allegations of overt acts,” he added.

Lagman criticized Pulido for using the “patently hearsay” testimony of Jose de Venecia III in the Senate, and the allegation that Mrs. Arroyo “did nothing” when she was told by former NEDA chief Romulo Neri about Abalos’ P200 million bribe offer.

“It does not attribute any immoral, unethical, illegal or criminal act on the part of the respondent President. A mere discussion of the respective proposals of AHI and ZTE during a golf game in China does not constitute an overt act of betrayal of public trust,” he said.

“Moreover, it does not allege the inculpatory elements of conspiracy like the pursuit of a common criminal design. Conspiracy is not presumed.

“The elements of conspiracy must be alleged. Mere knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate is not sufficient to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy.”

Case brought to SC

Iloilo Vice Gov. Rolex Suplico and lawyer Harry Roque questioned before the Supreme Court yesterday the action of the secretary-general of the House of Representative in dismissing their supplemental impeachment complaint against President Arroyo and resigned elections chairman Abalos.

In a 19-page petition, Suplico and Roque asked the Tribunal to order the Office of the Secretary-General to transmit their supplemental impeachment complaint to the Office of the Speaker so it can be referred to the committee on justice, which would determine if it is sufficient in form and substance.

“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,” Suplico said.

“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 and Roque said the secretary general committed a “grave abuse of discretion” when he arrogated unto himself the power to determine the susceptibility of a public official to an impeachment complaint, in violation of the Constitution.

The original Abalos impeachment complaint which they had filed was declared as “moot and academic” by the secretary general as Abalos had already resigned, the petitioners added. – Delon Porcalla, Mike Frialde