E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Another Lozano impeachment?
Tuesday, 10 09, 2007
Someone please tell me I’m guilty of faulty logic here. You see, I have not read that three-page impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Ruel Pulido and endorsed by Rep. Edgar San Luis, but I can arrive outright at a judgment that it is not sufficient in form and substance deserving the attention of the committee on justice of the House of Representatives.
That it was filed by Pulido and endorsed by San Luis does not make me tarry even a bit in concluding that the complaint bears the distinctive hallmark of another Lozano. That’s a word, a popularized technicality, that has entered into the Filipino jargon to mean “a maneuver intended to shield President Gloria Arroyo from a bruising knock-down-and-drag-out impeachment proceeding.”
Not too long ago, Pulido was the lawyer of Trillanes, et al., defending the latter before the military and civilian courts for their alleged participation in the Oakwood mutiny. But text messages (again!) not exactly complimentary of Pulido, have been circulating, claiming that Pulido has since been terminated as lawyer for the Trillanes group. And, lately, it was the same Pulido who filed a complaint against Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. with the House committee on ethics, for de Venecia’s alleged intervention in the ZTE deal. The complaint was, of course, welcomed with glee by the stalwarts of the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Kampi), the political party of President Arroyo.
So what do we have here - a fifth columnist? I do not mean columnist in the sense of “a journalist contributing regularly to a newspaper,” but San Luis denies he is a member of Kampi, but his colleagues insist he is. Member, schmember… whatever. The fact is, San Luis’ harassing heart — and solarized soul? — belongs to the administration. He will protect President Arroyo every which way and, like many members of Kampi, he has no heart for de Venecia.
Now, why should the impeachment complaint of a former opposition lawyer now sympathetic to the administration be endorsed by an administration solon?
It does not make sense at first blush, but it does make sense if one has an inquisitive mind. Consider these:
The complaint alleges a betrayal of public trust on the ground that President Arroyo caused the approval of the ZTE deal, despite having been informed of the bribe offer of “200” by Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. to then Socio-Economic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri. Why should it be filed this early, when the details are yet to be established by the hearings at the Senate?
Determination of sufficiency in form and substance is based solely and exclusively on the complaint itself and the bare allegations contained in it. And what could be the bare allegations in the complaint constituting betrayal of public trust but Neri’s claim of having had to report to President Arroyo the bribe offer and the latter’s subsequent inaction against the person making the bribe offer and her instructions to “proceed anyway” in approving the contract.
These bare allegations hardly make out a case for betrayal of public trust. The fact that the whole story behind the ZTE deal has yet to unfold; when executive privilege is still being invoked to deter any disclosure on what the President actually said and did; when the Senate has yet to terminate its investigations and arrive at its findings of facts; when the President subject of the impeachment complaint appears to have already shelved the project; and when the concurrence of the Chinese government for the shelving of the deal is reported to have been already secured - these are hard realities that impinge on the substance of the complaint.
In a word, the impeachment complaint in all its three pages is short on substance. Being short on substance, the complaint will not prosper.
But the rule is, that only one complaint can be initiated against an impeachable official during one legislative year. The endorsement of San Luis completed the initiation. So, on record, one complaint - the Pulido complaint - has been initiated against President Arroyo in this legislative year. That forecloses the initiation of another complaint against her.
San Luis will probably end up the lone signatory to the Pulido complaint. Or there might be others who will hook up to this charade, but the magic number of 80 will not be obtained.
So there. Neat, if you ask me. The complaint does not seem to be what it is, but it does serve its purpose. And all those who hoped that Arroyo has had in this particular time will have to wait for next year for another crime.
Another lawyer did the trick these past many years for President Arroyo, buying her time. With her many allies, old ones and new converts, falling all over the place to protect her from impeachment, this latest complaint makes everyone clamor for another amendment to the rules on impeachment.
The Pulido complaint is tangentially designed to test how far Speaker de Venecia will go to tax the patience of President Arroyo. Imagine the 120 or so congressmen - the number claimed by Kampi as having gone to Malacañang following the “back off!” revelation of Joey de Venecia - conspiring to oust the Speaker after one wrong and precipitate move on the Pulido complaint. How the forces will fall in to march to the beat of the Pulido complaint is a dress rehearsal for the ouster of the Speaker.
Vice-Governor Rolex Suplico, who brought to our consciousness the corruption behind the ZTE deal, looks at it differently. He says: “Kampi can never be too sure. This could boomerang on them. Speaker de Venecia could whip up the numbers in a showdown over his seat or in endorsing the complaint to the Senate.”
Let’s see. Having seen so many battles lost, I bet on the first; but I pray for Rolex’s scenario.
No comments:
Post a Comment