|
By Maricel V. Cruz Reporter
THE minority bloc in the House of
Representatives are seriously considering the filing of an
impeachment complaint against beleaguered Commission on Elections (Comelec)
head Benjamin Abalos following the latter’s testimony at the
Senate hearing Wednesday on the controversial national broadband
deal.
Party-list Rep. Teodoro Casino of
the left-leaning Bayan Muna said former socioeconomic planning
Secretary Romulo Neri’s testimony that Abalos had tried to bribe
him in exchange for the approval of the contract provides more bases
for Congress to unseat Abalos for bribery, graft and corruption and
betrayal of public trust.
“It is the political will to do
it that is now needed. Bayan Muna will ask the minority today
[Wednesday] to prepare such a complaint,” Casino said at a news
conference.
Casino also said his group will
also propose to the minority the possible inclusion in the complaint
of Abalos’s alleged involvement in the electoral fraud committed
in the presidential elections in 2004 and in 2007.
Another party-list
representative, Rep. Crispin Beltran of Anakpawis called for the
resignation of Abalos so as to “save himself from further
embarrassment and shame.”
“Chairman Abalos should resign.
Do the honorable thing and resign,” Beltran said.
“Right now, nothing has been
established between his office as chairman of the Comelec and his
role in the brokering the NBN contract with ZTE Corp., but it’s
impossible to disregard the truth that his credibility as head of
the national elections machinery of the country is now damaged
beyond repair. He should resign, resign, resign.”
With Neri’s testimony, Beltran
noted, it has become evident that Abalos’ main tactic after being
pushed to the corner is to deny all the charges against him,
including bribery, and lash out against everyone else who says
differently.
“Chairman Abalos has failed to
debunk the charges against him, and was unable to establish his
innocence using his own line of defense and reasoning. The more he
tries to deny the charges, the more complicated and improbable his
explanations became,” the militant lawmaker noted.
“His testimony is full of holes
and inconsistencies, contrasting the previous testimonies made by
DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza and Finance Secretary Margarito Teves.”
This developed as House Speaker
Jose de Venecia Jr. on Wednesday defended his son, Jose de Venecia
III, asserting that the latter did not have any interest in
Multi-Media Telephony Inc. when the company applied for legislative
franchise, which was eventually approved by Congress on February 23,
1995.
The Speaker, in a statement,
explained at the time the franchise was approved, the young de
Venecia was not a shareholder nor officer at all, nor did he have
any interest in the company. Only much later was he employed as
chief operating officer by Multi-Media Telephony, Inc.
According to de Venecia, existing
laws, including the 1987 Constitution, exonerates his son as “It
can be concluded that the participation of a child of a legislator
as member of the board of a corporation with application for
franchise—or with a contract with the government—cannot be
considered a violation of the Constitution and the provision of the
Anti-Graft Law.”
“On legal issues, it is clear
in the provision of the 1987 Constitution and RA 3019 on conflict of
interest that the term ‘financial or pecuniary interest’ and the
phrase ‘becoming interested for personal gain or having a material
interest, directly or indirectly’ in any transaction covered only
personal interest, including the interest of his [the
legislator’s] wife and emancipated children, but excluding the
interest of other relatives such as brothers, sisters, mother and
father and a child of age, pursuant to a Department of Justice
Opinion No. 88 series of 1992. Very clearly, Jose de Venecia III is
of age and independent of his father,” de Venecia explained.
“In the deliberation by the
1986 Constitutional Commission on this particular subject matter
under Sec. 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, Commissioners
Natividad and de los Reyes clearly intended that the phrase
‘directly or indirectly’ does not even include the wife if they
are separated, and children who are emancipated and independent from
a parent who is a member of Congress,” the House Speaker added.
|
