Wednesday, November 19, 2008 House upholds sufficiency in form of Arroyo impeach rap
THE House justice committee on Tuesday declared sufficient in form the impeachment case filed by businessman Joey de Venecia and civil society groups against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Quezon City Representative Matias Defensor, chairman of the committee, said the complaint is duly verified and notarized.
The panel will resume the hearing Wednesday to begin debating whether the complaint is sufficient in substance - the test in which all the past impeachment complaints against the President since 2005 had failed to pass.
Defensor said the complaint will only pass the test of substance if the complaint contains "a recital of facts constituting the offense charged, supported by admissible and credible evidence that engenders well founded belief that the offense charged have been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof."
"Impeachment is the instrument to preserve, not destroy, government. It should not and cannot be the instrument for partisan politics or political vendetta or hatred for advance personal and political aspirations," he said in the presence of Joey and his father, former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.
The elder de Venecia, in a media interview, said that while he was guilty of involvement in the dismissal of past impeachment complaints against Arroyo, "we did not vote in one week."
"It took us more than a week, to put big battle on the floor," he said. "It's very important that they (justice panel) do not seem to be railroading it."
During the hearing, Baguio Representative Mauricio Domogan initially moved that the committee determine if the complaint is sufficient in form but the motion was later amended by Cebu Representative Raul del Mar, who moved that the complaint be declared sufficient in form.
However, before the panel upheld the complaint's sufficiency in form, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman corrected Bohol Representative Adam Relson Jala for insisting that the complaint has failed the test of form and should therefore be dismissed already.
Jala, a neophyte congressman and a rookie lawyer, said that since the complaint did not "materially allege" that it has complied with the constitutional provision, which prohibits the filing of more than one impeachment complaint against the same official in a year, the complaint should be dismissed.
Lagman, apparently concerned that the House will again be subjected to attacks for dismissing the complaint outright, said there was no need for the complainants to make such a declaration since the House can issue a judicial notice.
"This is what you call the essence of democracy," Parañaque Representative Roilo Golez told the panel, drawing laughter.
Golez also told Defensor that his speech "sounded like (a list) of grounds for (the complaint's) dismissal."
Earlier in the hearing, the 40-man panel wrangled on which complaint should be tackled since three other complaints were also filed by lawyers Guillermo Sotto, Oliver Lozano, and Manolo Quezon III.
The de Venecia complaint was filed before the Office of the Secretary General ahead of the Sotto and Lozano complaints, which were also filed on October 13 when the one-year ban on filing was lifted.
However, after receiving the Quezon "intervening" complaint last November 12, Secretary General Marilyn Yap automatically referred it to the justice panel.
The Sotto complaint was endorsed by Eastern Samar Representative Teodolo Coquilla, while no one endorsed the Quezon complaint that accuses Arroyo of treason for attempting to enter into a memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD) with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
Mandaluyong Representative Nepatali Gonzales II said the Quezon complaint should still be referred to the justice panel because of the constitutional bar.
However, Iloilo Representative Arthur Defensor, who chairs the rules panel, suggested that the justice panel focus on the de Venecia complaint and not be "embattled" by the other complaints, which might be easily dismissed later pursuant to the one-year bar.
"It's not the prerogative of the committee on rules to decide whether the complaint is barred or not. It only follows what's mandated by the Constitution and the rules of the House," he said.
In the Francisco v. the House case, the Supreme Court ruled that a complaint is deemed initiated once it is referred to the justice panel.
When Domogan attempted to move that only the de Venecia complaint should be tackled, Bayan Muna party-list Representative Teodoro Casiño objected, saying the complaints could be consolidated by the committee that may decide to reject it.
Defensor however said that as far as the other complaints are concerned, "the committee has no jurisdiction."
South Cotabato Representative Darlene Antonino-Custodio said it was not for the panel chairperson to rule if the intervening complaint would be rejected, noting that she does not even know that it was already referred to the committee.
Defensor said it does not matter how much the minority calls for transparency if the panel has not acquired jurisdiction of the complaints.
The committee later decided to resume the debates Wednesday before it discusses whether the de Venecia complaint is sufficient in substance. (WV/Sunnex)
