The 2nd Impeachment

MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE 6) Voting 43-1, the justice committee at the House of Representatives dismissed on Wednesday the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Roel Pulido against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Only the endorser of the complaint, Laguna Representative Edgar San Luis, voted against the dismissal of the case.

A motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of substance was presented by Bacolod Representative Monico Puentevella, only less than an hour after the committee opened its discussion a little past 10 a.m.

“After what happened last night, I’m not having the right spirit now to continue this [debate]… so may I therefore move Mr. Chairman that we dismiss the complaint on hand on the ground that it is not sufficient in substance. I so move, Mr. Chairman,” Puentevella said.

Puentevella referred to the explosion that ripped through the south wing of the House Tuesday night that killed Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar and two civilians and injured seven others, including Congressman Henry Teves and Congresswoman Luzviminda Ilagan.

Puentevella’s motion was seconded by members of the committee but objected to by Cavite Representative Elpidio Barzaga, an administration ally.

But Davao City Representative Prospero Nograles moved immediately to have all objections or explanations of votes by members of the committee to be done in writing.

The committee approved Nograles’ motion and proceeded with the voting.

“By a vote of 43 for the dismissal of the complaint as against the vote of one, the motion to declare the complaint insufficient in substance is therefore carried and the complaint is hereby dismissed,” said the committee chairman, Quezon City Representative Matias Defensor.

After the hearing, Defensor told reporters that the committee might submit its report declaring the complaint sufficient in form but insufficient in substance to the plenary early next week.

At least one-third vote of 239 members of the House is needed to bring the complaint to the Senate for trial.

Except for Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas n Jr., no opposition member participated in the proceeding. Tupas also voted for the dismissal of the complaint.

“It’s sad that we just have to follow the rules as much as we can,” Defensor said.

“And in the committee proceedings, as you can see , we gave them all the time to amplify their position but I think there’s nothing really at this point that can really substantiate an impeachment complaint against the President,” he pointed out.

But Defensor said their report could still be reversed in the plenary by more than one-third of the total membership of the House.

“If it’s controverted [or reversed by the plenary], then it proceeds to the Senate for the trial and the complaint shall be considered as the articles of impeachment,” he said.

At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman declared that the complaint was “grossly insufficient of substance” and “bereft of the requisite ultimate facts.”

“It is inordinately bare like a centerfold, which may excite but does not excel,” he added.

Lagman said the complaint did not pass the test required by Section 4 of Rule 3 of the rules of impeachment, which states that “The requirement of substance is met if there’s a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee.”

The allegation that the President had gone to China and met with proponents there of the controversial national broadband project did not also constitute an overt act of betrayal of public trust, which was the lone impeachable offense cited in the Pulido complaint, Lagman said.

“Nowhere in the Pulido complaint is it unequivocally and clearly alleged that the respondent, President, committed over acts constituting a violation or violations of her aforesaid undertakings in her oath of office,” he lawmaker said.

“A violation must be alleged clearly and directly. It must never be presumed,” he pointed out.

Pulido branded the dismissal of the complaint as “Moro-Moro” or a farce.

Pulido said that although his case was only three pages long, it has an annex containing the affidavit of businessman Jose “Joey” de Venecia III , who implicated the President in the NBN deal.

“They said that no crime was committed but this is betrayal of public trust …A crime need not be committed, if it is something really offensive, that is an impeachable offense,” he said.

San Luis used the same argument when he was defending his endorsement of the complaint.

“My understanding of betrayal of public trust did not constitute any crime committed that even a grain of doubt or an iota of doubt to the highest position in the land constitutes betrayal of public trust,” he said.

The committee’s action is expected to have the effect of immunizing Arroyo against a more formidable impeachment case because House rules bar the filing of more than one impeachment complaint against the President in a year.

On Monday, the committee declared the Pulido complaint sufficient in form.

Opponents of Arroyo had said they would elevate the impeachment battle to the Supreme Court.

Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., meanwhile, rejected any suggestions that Tuesday night’s blast was linked to the impeachment hearings or the corruption investigation, referring to the alleged distribution of cash gifts to congressmen last October.

Arroyo has faced several corruption scandals and a feisty opposition since 2001, when she was catapulted to power after helping to lead a nonviolent "people power" revolt that ousted her predecessor Joseph Estrada. She has crushed at least three coup attempts and her allies in the House of Representatives had defeated previous attempts to impeach her. With The Associated Press