MANILA, Philippines—The fourth impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo overcame its first hurdle at the House of Representatives after it was declared sufficient in form despite an attempt by Bohol Rep. Adam Jala to return it to the complainants for supposed defects.

The justice committee is expected to take up the complaint’s substance Wednesday even as the President’s allies foresee its defeat despite opposition claims that the complaint is stronger than previous ones.

The committee members on Tuesday agreed unanimously to declare the 97-page impeachment complaint sufficient in form, but Jala wanted it returned for failing to categorically state that the one-year ban against filing an impeachment petition had lapsed.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said that there was no need for the complainants to cite that the one-year ban had lapsed. When the complaint was endorsed to the justice committee, it was understood to mean that the ban had lapsed, he said.

Bloggers intervention

House members will also decide Wednesday on what to do with an intervention filed by a group of bloggers who want the President held to account for a provisional agreement with Muslim secessionists to expand the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which the Supreme Court has invalidated.

Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, the justice committee chair, said he considered the intervention a new complaint as it raised a new issue, and was thus barred since only one impeachment pleading could be filed in a year.

He also said the intervention could not be heard if the committee has not acquired jurisdiction over it.

Defensor told reporters that the committee would either vote on Wednesday on whether or not to accept the intervention, or he would come up with another action to be approved by legislators.

No new complaint

Parañaque Rep. Eduardo Zialcita warned that if the intervention is accepted, there would be no end to such pleadings.

Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño and Bukidnon Rep. Teofisto Guingona III said the intervention was not a new complaint but an attempt to join an existing complaint.

The latest impeachment complaint against the President was filed by businessman Jose “Joey” de Venecia III, lawyer Harry Roque, Iloilo Vice Gov. Rolex Suplico, missing activists’ mothers Edita Burgos, Concepcion Empeño and Erlinda Cadapan.

Among the grounds cited in the complaint were the P728-million fertilizer fund scam; the bribery of lawmakers allegedly to support the sham impeachment against the President complaint last year; human rights violations; and the scuttled $329-million National Broadband Network deal with China’s ZTE Corp.

It was endorsed by Joey de Venecia’s father, Pangasinan Rep. and former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. The De Venecia father and son were at the hearing on Tuesday.

Inhibition

The elder De Venecia told reporters that if only numbers are considered, then the impeachment would not be able to get enough numbers. But it will succeed if the lawmakers “factor in their conscience,” he said.

Casiño asked that Deputy Speaker Amelita Villarosa inhibit herself or be disqualified, noting that Villarosa had admitted to having distributed money from the President’s party to members of Congress last year, one of the grounds cited in the complaint.

But Villarosa, who said she gave funds to only two lawmakers, said she would recuse herself “at the proper time.”

Defensor said he would rule on the issue when it is raised.

Casiño said that lawmakers linked to the fertilizer fund scam should also inhibit themselves.

A total of 105 past and incumbent lawmakers were allocated funds from the P728-million fund scam, and 35 of them are members of the present Congress.

In his preliminary statement, Defensor called on House members not to use the impeachment proceedings to advance personal interests.

Political vendetta

“Impeachment is the instrument to preserve, not to destroy, government. It should not and cannot be the instrument for partisan politics of political vendetta or hatred or advance personal and political aspirations,” he said.

He also laid down the guidelines to be used in deciding whether or not a complaint is substantial.

He said the Supreme Court has stated that conclusions of law or mere opinions are not considered a proper recital of facts necessary in an impeachment complaint.

These statements include allegations that the President had ulterior motives or abused their advantages, as well as opinions, fears or suspicions unsupported by facts or evidence.

Considered conclusions of law are allegations that there was a violation of trust, that a contract is valid or void and that there was an intent to skirt laws for political persecution or vengeance. Leila B. Salaverria