MANILA, Philippines -- Malacañang on Saturday said it now lay on Pangasinan Rep. Jose de Venecia to explain the legality of the joint seismic study in the disputed Spratly Islands among the Philippines, China and Vietnam.

Passing the buck to the ousted Speaker, who on Friday called on President Macapagal-Arroyo and Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo ?to disclose fully the contents? of the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU), Presidential Management Staff chief Cerge Remonde said it was De Venecia who should do so.

?His name was mentioned as the one who instigated this deal. The roles he played in the many controversies being talked about now have finally come to light,? Remonde said in an interview over dzRB.

But Remonde said the Department of Foreign Affairs was ?ready to explain? the JMSU in any forum.

He said even Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who was the President?s chief legal counsel when the original bilateral agreement between the Philippines and China was signed in 2004, could ?answer for her part.?

On Thursday, former Senate President Franklin Drilon told the Inquirer that Gutierrez sought his help in 2004 about the yet to be signed bilateral agreement because she felt it might be in violation of the Constitution and could be grounds for impeaching Ms Arroyo.

But Remonde said: ?If we will hear Gutierrez?s side, I would not be surprised if Drilon?s claim will turn out to be false.?

He pointed out that ?the concept of the JMSU is to make the Spratlys an area of cooperation instead of an area of conflict.?

He added that Drilon?s claim ?already forms part of agitation [and] propaganda to fuel the people?s anger against President Gloria.?

?Wide gap?

On Friday, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez assailed Drilon for the latter?s purported double standard in judging inter-country seismic projects.

In a press release titled ?The Spratlys and Mr. Drilon,? Gonzalez cited the ?wide gap? between Drilon?s opinion as justice secretary of President Corazon Aquino some two decades ago and his opinion now as private citizen ?identified with the opposition.?

He pointed to Drilon?s 1990 Department of Justice opinion about a similar seismic project with Australia, over which the latter interposed no objection.

Gonzalez also said: ?But what is most surprising is why my good friend, former Senate President Franklin Drilon, seems to have insinuated in the newspapers that the President may be impeached on the issue, although he said that there is no treason involved.?

In the 1990 opinion, Drilon said of the planned project with Australia: ?The proposed offshore seismic project aims to provide data and expertise to the Philippine government in the determination and development of significant domestic energy resources and to provide training and data gathering, processing and interpretation techniques which would be useful in the future especially to administer petroleum exploration and development activities effectively.?

He said he found ?no legal objection to the project proposal and to the execution of the MOA (memorandum of agreement) covering it.?