|
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Proponents walk out of impeachment hearing
MANILA -- House minority members walked out of the impeachment hearing Tuesday after they were accused of falsifying the ouster complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The walkout was triggered by Cavite Representative Elpidio Barzaga's statement that the complaint should be dismissed outright because it contains falsified documents.
What's your take on the Mindanao crisis? Discuss views with other readers
Barzaga also warned that the complainants could be charged with falsification of public documents as the complaint was notarized on October 10 or a day before it was filed.
House minority floor leader Ronaldo Zamora (San Juan representative) led the walkout, followed by former speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., militant lawmakers, and pro-impeachment congressmen.
However, before Zamora's group was able to get out of the hearing room, committee leaders Matias Defensor of Quezon City, Simeon Datumanong of Maguindanao, and Edcel Lagman of Albay convinced them to return to the hearing.
Tuesday's hearing was the anti-impeachment congressmen's turn to defend President Arroyo against the ouster case filed against her by businessman Jose "Joey" de Venecia III, son of former speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.
'Immature trantrums'
Malacañang branded as "immature tantrums" the walkout staged by the pro-impeachment congressmen.
Deputy presidential spokesman Anthony Golez said the impeachment proponents should listen and respect the side and arguments of those against the case just as they listened and respected their views when they defended their complaint last Monday.
Golez said the arguments of the opposing sides should be heard by the public to enable them to fully understand what is happening and eventually make their own decision or judgment on the complaint.
The airing of the views and arguments of both the complainants and defenders of the President would also enable the members of the House justice panel to make an enlightened decision, he added.
Political grandstanding
Speaker Prospero Nograles meantime urged the two opposing sides to avoid using the impeachment process as a personal platform for political grandstanding at the expense of the entire House as an institution.
Nograles said the members of Congress are mere "transients" while the House of Representatives is an institution that is a permanent edifice of the country's democracy.
"All of us are mere transients in the House of Representatives and none of us can stay here forever. The House of the people, on the other hand, is here to stay, so let's think about the institution that we represent even in the face of a very contentious issue like the impeachment," he said.
"We can debate without resorting to walkouts and name-calling because this is only being resorted when people have run out of valid arguments," Nograles said.
The current Speaker said the reason he has allowed both the pros and antis in the impeachment complaint to speak their minds without interruption is to bring forth a well-balanced discussion where all sides can "ventilate their views" in relation to the move to impeach President Arroyo.
Insufficient in substance
At the hearing, Cebu Representative Pablo Garcia, an anti-impeachment congressman, said like Jesus Christ, the President "is being persecuted by the opposition based only on mere perception - the same way Pontius Pilate allowed mob rule and ordered the Lord's crucifixion."
"Our Lord Jesus Christ lost in the survey and he was crucified and that's how we're going to judge President?" he asked the committee on justice which is scheduled to dismiss the impeachment complaint on Wednesday for being insufficient in substance.
Garcia was referring to paragraph 34 of the 97-page impeachment complaint, which cited a survey that claimed more than half of the respondents believe that Arroyo had massively cheated in the 2004 national elections.
He said that among the long list of offenses contained in the complaint, the reference on opinion surveys was the "most bizarre allusion and allegation."
"Since when in this country a person convicted as a result of an opinion survey?" he said, noting that the opposition is doing a Pilate by allowing some 2,500 to 5,000 survey respondents to sway his judgment.
Garcia, 83, was the designated spokesman of the majority bloc on the discourse on "legal principles and precepts" that would prove the complaint is insufficient in substance.
"When the committee found the complaint sufficient in form, it was like the committee is offered something that look like a sandwich in form? But the question in the minds of our colleagues is: Where's the beef? Where's the substance?" he said.
According to Garcia, the complaint failed to meet the only requirement for substance under the rules of impeachment, which states that a complaint should contain a "recital of facts constituting the offense charge and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee."
The case, he said, also failed to contain a "plain, concise and direct statement of ultimate facts."
Earlier in the hearing, Edcel Lagman, another anti-impeachment congressman, mocked the opposition for filing the complaint despite losing the political fight in the past three years for lack of numbers.
He said some may allege that the opposition "is simply politicking in aid of the forthcoming elections because impeachment attempts may not oust the President but they certainly make senators."
"No, my Distinguished Colleagues, the complainants and endorsers are not masochists; neither are they media-hungry nor merely politicking," he said.
"Indeed, they are dead serious. They truly believe in the causes they advocate. They are determined crusaders whose dissent makes democracy real. In acknowledgement of the perceived nobility of the motives of the complainants and endorsers, the majority will not outvote them with numbers but with superiority of rhyme and reason and ascendancy of law and logic," he added.
Lagman cited the Supreme Court (SC) in Tatuico vs Republic when it said that "recital of ultimate facts must allege overt and personal acts of the respondent constituting the impeachable offense."
"The acts of subalterns and alter egos not alleged as personally authorized or personally sanctioned by the respondent cannot ensnare the latter into culpability," he said.
The other majority congressmen who disputed the complaint were George Arnaiz of Negros Oriental, who belied the charge of betrayal of public trust for the 2004 electoral fraud; Simeon Datumanong, who said there is no adequate recital of facts constituting culpable violation of the Constitution; Roman Romulo of Pasig, who discussed the insufficiency of the recital of facts on bribery with respect to allegations relative to the National Broadband Network (NBN)-ZTE and "P500,000 payola" to congressmen; and Mauricio Domogan of Baguio, who said there is no sufficient recital of facts on the charge of graft and corruption on all the other issues including the fertilizer fund scam, Quedan Corp. swine program, and others. (WV/JMR/Sunnex)
For more Philippine news, visit Sun.Star Baguio. (November 26, 2008 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
Lawyer exposes 'no-el' plot in 2010