Saturday, October 13, 2007 Editorials: Pulido’s impeachment initiative
THERE is as yet no proof that former Magdalo legal counsel Roel Pulido, who filed an impeachment case against President Arroyo in the House, is Malacanang-backed.
Pulido has been filing cases left and right lately, including one against Speaker Jose de Venecia, that it is not difficult to believe this is part of his limelight-seeking ruse.
Meanwhile, the claim of party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran that somebody identified with Kampi tried to bribe him to sign the impeachment case relies only on his say so.
That easily deteriorated into a “his-word-against-mine” verbal exchange.
Speculations
Despite lack of solid proof, politicians and political kibitzers have, as expected, launched on orgy of speculations that are interesting but are nothing but, well, mere talk.
An example is that one about rivals of de Venecia in the administration coalition being behind the filing of the complaint to weaken his hold on the post of speaker.
Which is possible because de Venecia’s strength is in his ability to forge a coalition in the House enough to shield the President from impeachment moves.
The theory is that once this “weak” impeachment complaint is dismissed, the House can no longer entertain another impeachment case for one year.
This would mean that de Venecia’s advantage will be taken away from him, giving his rivals the opening to mount a new offensive to oust him.
Palace’s hands
But whether the claims and speculations are true or not, the fact remains that Pulido’s move played into Malacañang’s hands and was a slap on the political opposition.
There is no way that Pulido, preparing the complaint by his lonesome, could substantiate the complaint the way the best minds of the opposition working together can.
Thus, despite de Venecia’s initial hemming and hawing, the impeachment complaint is moving and has been referred to the House committee on justice.
Blame
But it would be wrong for the opposition to solely blame Malacanang for this latest political twist because it also proved lack of foresight, meaning incompetence.
This is not the first time that this happened and the political opposition should have learned the lessons from last year’s controversy involving lawyer Oliver Lozano.
Or maybe it was so mesmerized by the cracks showing in the administration coalition that it lowered its guard and did not reckon with other impeachment case filers.
