GMA Impeachment Monitor

Keeping Score

View the 2006 impeachment votes >>

7 September 2006—Do you know how your Congressman voted on the Committee report junking the latest Impeachment Complaint filed against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? We did a comparison of Congressmen’s votes in the 2006 versus 2005 impeachment hearings and found out some interesting changes. Some did a 180 degree change, others chose the status quo. However they voted, should be noted down on your score card running up to the 2007 elections.

This year’s votes was 173-“yes”, in favor of the Committee report junking the Impeachment complaint, 32 voted “no”, meaning they’re against the report and are in favor of the Impeachment complaint, 26 were absent or failed to vote and 1abstained. Last year’s vote was 158-“yes”, 51-“no”, 21-absent/ failed to vote, 6-abstain.

Leading the group who made a transition from “No” to Yes”, in favor of the Committee report were Rep. Teddy Locsin Jr. (1st District, Makati City-PDP Laban, 2nd term), Proceso Alacala (2nd District, Quezon-LP,1st term), Rodante Marcoleta (ALAGAD Party list, 1st term), Jacinto Paras (1st District, Negros Oriental-LDP, 3rd term), Antonino Roman (1st District, Bataan-LP, 3rd term), Arthur Pingoy (2nd District, South Cotabato-NPC, 2nd term) and Hans Christian Seneres (BUHAY Party list, 2nd term).

Joining the “No” vote this year was Rep. Imee Marcos (2nd District, Ilocos Norte-KBL, 3rd term). Congressmen who consistently failed to vote for two straight years were Rep. Carlos Cojuangco (4th District, Negros Occidental-NPC, 3rd term), Juan Ponce Enrile Jr. (1st District, Cagayan-NPC, 3rd term), Carlos Imperial (2nd District, Albay-NPC, 2nd term), Antonio Serapio (2nd District, Valenzuela City-NPC,1st term) and Caloocan City representatives Luis Asistio (2nd District, Caloocan City-NPC,1st term) and Oscar Malapitan (1st District, Caloocan City-KNP, 1st term).

Vote over but the battle goes on

24 August 2006—The House of Representatives voted 173-32-1 to dismiss the impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo filed by the Black n White movement on 27 June 2006. Among the accusations against the President are election fraud, graft and corruption, human rights abuses, and violation of the Constitution.

Although pro-impeachment solons failed to muster 78 votes (or the 1/3 required votes) they still pleaded to be allowed to present evidence contained in the seven boxes. Rep. Edcel Lagman (1st District, Albay-AKSYON) blamed the opposition for rejecting his proposed amendment to the rules of impeachment which would have allowed them to present evidence prior to the determination of substance.

The eighth complaint was filed and referred on 27 July 2006. It was the only complaint considered based on the lifting of the one-year ban for initiating an impeachment proceeding. Last year, initiation of an impeachment proceeding means “filing and referral” to the Justice Committee. This year, Rep. Lagman said the “reckoning point” of the one-year rule is the Committee’s “actual receipt” of the petition on 26 July 2005. So all seven impeachment complaints were declared “barred and premature” having been submitted before 26 July 2006 at 4:40 pm.

On 9 August, the House Justice Committee voted unanimously that the complaint was sufficient in form. The following week, voting 56-24, the 102-member panel ruled that it was insufficient in substance.

Committee Chairman Rep. Simeon Datumanong (2nd District, Maguindanao-LAKAS-CMD), said that he expected the plenary to uphold Committee report no. 1886. Committee Vice-Chairman Rep. Edcel Lagman “diagnosed” the complaint as “dead on arrival” being founded on generalizations.

With the recent appointments of Rep. Jesli Lapus (3rd District, Tarlac-NPC) as Department of Education Secretary and Sec. Rolando Andaya (1st District, Camarines Sur-LP) to head the Budget department, and the death of Rep. Romualdo Vicencio (2nd District, Northern Samar-LAKAS-CMD) in the ranks of the House, the one-third requirement to overturn the committee report is less by one vote, now at 78. Seven of those who voted to impeach the President last year voted to adopt the committee report this time. Rep. Imee Marcos (2nd District, Ilocos Norte-KBL) who was absent last year voted to dismiss the report. Last year’s plenary vote was 158-51 with six abstentions.



Remains of the day

22 August 2006—In a record attempt by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s allies in Congress, the 8th impeachment complaint against her was killed in less than 8 days from the day it was transmitted to the House of Representatives Committee on Justice. If the impeachment complaint last year was dead on arrival, this years’ was terminally ill from day one, say pro-administration congressmen. On 27 June 2006, Black & White movement filed the complaint endorsed by Liberal Party representatives Nereus Acosta of Bukidnon, Tarlac representative Benigno Aquino III, Henedina Abad of Batanes and Manuel Mamba of Cagayan.

On the day it was filed, Vice Chairman Edcel Lagman already gave a premonition of things to come. He declared the ban on filing impeachment complaints was only lifted at 4:40 pm on 26 July, possibly nullifying the 7 previously filed by groups under a complaint-intervention scheme. This tactic proved effective. On 8 August, the Justice Committee under Chairman Simeon Datumanong, recognized this 8th identical impeachment complaint. It was also then that the committee voted it as sufficient in form, voting 54 to 24.

The success however, was short-lived. On 10 August 2006, the complaint was declared insufficient in substance by a vote of 56-24. Rep. Roilo Golez’ motion to vote separately on the 22 points raised in the complaint was denied. Disappointed, opposition members are now left with 7 huge boxes of documents they gathered on the case. According to Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano this contains evidence supporting all their allegations of graft and corruption, violation of human rights, and election fraud against Mrs. Arroyo. The boxes also contain testimonies of witnesses, videotapes and money trails, even of a purported bank account in Germany.

To protest the supposed conspiracy of administration allies in Congress, opposition representatives did not vote in today’s closed door Committee on Justice meeting to approve the 31-page report. The committee report according to Rep. Teddy Casino, did not reflect the debates particularly points raised by the pro-impeachment congressmen. The report will be transmitted to the House Committee on Rules for debate in the plenary.

“Hello, Garci” Anniversary

6 June 2006 -- This day marks the first anniversary of the worst scandal to shake the Arroyo Administration so far, the “Hello, Garci” controversy. It was Monday last year when Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye played before the Malacañang Press Corps two CDs containing wiretapped conversations allegedly between Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Secretary Bunye initially said it was the President’s voice on the tape, but later claimed he wasn't sure. Secretary Mike Defensor also said "it was the President’s voice, but she was not the one talking." Four days after the tapes were first played, Samuel Ong, former deputy director of the National Bureau of Investigation, presented his so-called “mother of all tapes.” He claimed the military intelligence agency ISAFP was behind the wiretapping and that ISAFP agent T/Sgt. Vidal Doble gave the tape to him.

On 27 June, President Arroyo aired her “I am sorry” address, admitting “a lapse in judgement” for making calls to an election official. She said she was just anxious to protect her votes but had no intention of influencing the outcome of the election. Earlier that day, Atty. Oliver Lozano filed the first impeachment complaint against President Arroyo--a flawed complaint that turned out to be a preemptive move that later led to its being junked by the House Justice Committee. Two more complaints followed--one by Jose Lopez and the amended complaint by the opposition--but these eventually would not make it past the justice committee as well.

Civil society organizations, educational institutions, business groups, and ranking
government officials soon called for alternative solutions. On 8 July, some members of the Arroyo Cabinet, now known as the “Hyatt 10,” called for the President's resignation. Former President Corazon Aquino as well as the Makati Business Club also called on the President to make a supreme sacrifice for the nation’s sake by resigning. By that time, several mass protests had already begun to take place.

As a response to the growing clamor for her to resign, the President announced in her State-of-the-Nation Address on 25 July that it was time to start “the great debate” on Charter change. But many people perceived the call as a way to divert attention from the Garci controversy. The House, meanwhile, started its discussions on the impeachment complaints. After several hearings, Administration allies succeeded in trashing the impeachment move by a vote of 158-51 with 6 abstentions for being insufficient in form and substance.

The joint House committees investigating the wiretapping incident tried to invite Commissioner Garcillano to answer allegations that he was behind the President’s one-million-vote-margin victory in the 2004 elections. However, the poll commissioner was able to evade the investigating committees by sneaking out of the country and flying to Singapore last 14 July.

Garcillano eventually reappeared before media on 26 November, denying involvement in election rigging and that he left the Philippines. He also denied having a biological relationship with Michaelangelo Zuce, an opposition witness. He appeared before Congress in December to deny again any conspiracy to rig the 2004 elections. He even showed his “clean” passport as proof that he did not leave the country, but it appeared to have been tampered.

A Minority report in the House accused the Administration of a cover-up after the investigating committees released a report concluding that there was no proof of Garcillano’s involvement in poll fraud and that there was a conspiracy by the opposition to unseat the President.

A year after the release of the wiretapped recordings, many sectors feel the “Hello, Garci” is still unresolved. With the one-year ban on the filing of an impeachment complaint against President Arroyo about to lapse by 27 June, expect the opposition to present a new impeachment sooner than you think.

Tale of a Death Foretold
“Better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don’t.”

15 September 2005 -- When impeachment complainant Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel (Akbayan Party-list) spoke at a forum in late August, she described the impeachment case against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as a tale of a death foretold, in reference to the work of famous novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez. In a marathon session in Congress which lasted almost 24 hours from 5 to 6 September, life imitated art as the public witnessed the death and burial of the impeachment complaint. The impeachment complaint was the victim of one of the most organized political efforts we have seen to pass a measure in Congress in years.

Though not expected to be introduced on the plenary floor on a Monday (5 September), talk was rife that the House Justice Committee Report to throw out the impeachment complaints would hit the floor and the Majority would push for a vote well before President Arroyo was due to leave for New York on 12 September to address the United Nations General Assembly. But on Monday morning, a quick check with the House Secretariat indicated that the Committee Report was not on the agenda for the day nor had the Committee Report been printed. However, by 2:40 p.m. – just a little less than an hour-and-a-half before the session was to open at 4:00 p.m. – a resolution was filed in the Secretary-General’s office to introduce the report. By 3:00 p.m., photocopying machines in the Bills and Index Section of the House Secretariat began to hum with activity with what looked like the printing of the Committee Report.

When the plenary session opened at 4:00 p.m., the report was not released yet and the House proceeded with its regular “privilege hour” session scheduled for Mondays. After a recess, the report suddenly appeared in circulation by around 5:30 p.m. bearing signatures of the Majority signifying the approval of the report. It was later disclosed in the plenary that the report had not been circulated to the Minority nor had a meeting been called to discuss the report. Normally, reports or bills have to be in circulation at least three days in the House before a vote is taken. Though unable to explain their own timeline, Majority Representative and Committee Vice-Chairman Edcel Lagman argued that discussions accepted in principle in committee hearings need not be subject to a review of the report by the committee prior to its release on the floor. Naturally, Lagman was able to produce the minutes of the meeting quoting himself seeking the approval of the agreements of the committee “in principle.” Previously sticklers for timelines, the Majority suddenly seemed not to quibble over the timeline of this report’s release. The die was cast.

By the time privilege speeches were wrapped up and the sponsorship of the report started, the session was well into the wee hours of the morning – coincidentally at about the same time that Congress proclaimed Mrs. Arroyo winner in the last elections, around 3:00 a.m. Given three minutes each to explain their votes, House members voted to accept the committee report (thereby effectively throwing out the impeachment complaints) by a vote of 158 to 51 with 21 absences and 6 abstentions. Notable among the absences were Reps. Imee Marcos and Joseph Santiago, both of whom signed the impeachment complaints. “No” votes expected from political allies of former President Joseph Estrada also did not materialize as the Congressmen were either absent or opted to abstain from making a stand. Rep. Crispin Remulla (3rd District, Cavite-Magdalo) flip-flopped on his vote, saying on Monday he would not sign the report and then publicly signing the report on Tuesday.

In the final analysis, the Minority failed to muster the 79 votes needed to take the complaint to trial as even the 23 names said to be in the envelope held by Rep. Edmund Reyes (Lone District, Marinduque-Lakas-CMD) failed to become a reality. On the other hand, even a number of the President’s own party felt that she should have gone through the impeachment process, indicating that not all were prepared to play along with the story line of the tale of a death foretold.

In the words of a Congressman who voted to accept the committee report and throw out the impeachment complaints, it was “better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don’t (know).”

Alas, just another day in Philippine politics.

Impeachment Hearings – Day 1 – August 10, 2005

Impeachment Hearings Suspended

While the President has said that she is prepared to face an impeachment trial in Congress, actions of her own party indicate otherwise.

Judging from the large crowd at the first day of the impeachment hearing – both pro- and anti-GMA – which had gathered in the committee room to listen to the House Committee on Justice start the hearings, one could see the intense interest in the impeachment case against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The public, however, came away disappointed after the Committee suspended the session and went into executive session less than an hour after opening the public hearing.

People came to the hearing to listen to the opening discussion on which impeachment complaint would eventually be considered by the committee. A total of three complaints had been filed in the House – the first by Oliver Lozano and endorsed by Congressman Rodante Marcoleta (a party-list Congressman allied to the President), the second by Jose Rizaldo Lopez and endorsed by LAKAS Congressman Antonio Alvarez (1^st District, Palawan-Lakas), and the third complaint by the Opposition. The Opposition’s complaint was in fact an amended version of the Lozano complaint. Some weeks ago, in an apparent anticipation of the impeachment proceedings, majority Congressman Marcoleta endorsed the Lozano complaint which the Opposition called weak and designed to fail. If voted down, no other impeachment complaint against the President could be entertained by Congress for another year, according to the rules of impeachment. For this reason, the first day of hearings was an important one for establishing which complaint would be heard by the Committee.

Instead, the Committee got bogged down over discussions of space (not enough) and rules on whether non-committee members could sit and participate in the hearings as they are allowed to do when regular legislation is considered. Taken somewhat aback by the presence of some of the "Hyatt 10" who had come to observe the hearings, the Committee suddenly suspended the session and called for an executive session (e.g., no public allowed) in an apparent violation of its own rules. According to the impeachment rules, an executive session may only be called when matters of national security are to be taken up.

Given the developments of the first day of hearings, there is certainly a stronger argument now for an independent inquiry or fact-finding commission to get to the bottom of the "Hello Garci" tapes and related matters. Unfortunately, Malacanang has not moved on its earlier promise for the so-called "truth commission" – no Administrative Order draft has been released nor has there been any bill filed in Congress to tackle the matter.

Hearings are set to resume on Tuesday, August 16 and Wednesday, August 17 in the Session Hall.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 2 – August 16, 2005

The Administration’s Legal Strategy : Delay

Impeachment hearings in Congress entered its second day in a larger venue – the main session hall – to accommodate more people in the gallery. That was about the only visible change for the day. The change in venue did not spell a shift in the pace of deliberations and the hearing ended as it had begun, with the majority party delaying progress on the hearing. After four hours of debate, the committee barely covered any ground and barely managed to even keep to its agenda.

The main bones of contention at the hearing were requests for Committee Chairman Simeon Datumanong to inhibit himself and the issue of which complaint among the three the committee should consider. The Chairman was asked to inhibit himself after he granted an interview on television the night before and gave out erroneous information. He was thought to be prejudging the impeachment hearings by the statements he made.

But the issue that received the most attention and ate up the most time was one raised by Vice-Chairman Edcel Lagman, (1st District, Albay), Luis Villafuerte (3rd District, Camarines Sur-NPC) and Salacnib Baterina (1st District, Ilocos Sur-Lakas). They raised the question on which among the three impeachment complaints filed before the Committee should be recognized. From their point of view, this matter had to be settled before proceeding to the matter of voting on the form and substance.

Adding to the confusion and delay was the disclosure that one impeachment complaint author, Rep. Rodante Marcoleta (Party-list Alagad), filed a motion on 15 August inquiring which Complaint was under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Justice. Rep. Lagman proposed that the Supreme Court decide on the matter, possibly deferring the Impeachment Trial further.

Even the agenda itself became a point of controversy when the Opposition noted that a Motion to Strike complaints out was put ahead of the discussion on the complaints’ form and substance itself. Moreover, the Marcoleta motion to strike was inserted into the meeting folders, although it was not included in the agenda.

The Opposition, led by Rep. Ronaldo Zamora (Lone District, San Juan-PMP) counter-argued that their amended complaint was sufficient in form and substance and that it was not in violation of the one-year ban stated in the Rules of Procedure. He also argued that the amended complaint was more specific than the other two. In facing the other two complaints filed by Administration allies in Congress, Zamora stated that the President would continue to face a credibility problem if she beats either of the two weaker complaints.

Also speaking for the Opposition, Rep. Francis Escudero (1st District, Sorsogon-NPC) pointed out that while the Constitution limited impeachment filings to only one per year, the restriction was for impeachment proceedings and not complaints. Quoting from the 1986 transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, he added that the Commission had called for flexibility and a liberal interpretation on complaints.

Deputy Minority leader Alan Peter Cayetano (Lone District, Taguig-Pateros-NP) pointed out that two of the three impeachment complaints were actually filed by the Majority and challenged the Administration to withdraw its own complaints. He said the public was entitled to get to the truth.

After two days of hearings, a pattern of delay is emerging. And with Congress set to go into recess on September 10, it remains to be seen whether the complaint will make it out of Committee and into the Plenary for a floor vote to obtain the 79 votes necessary to send it to the Senate for a trial.

Voting on the contentious issues was set for 17 August, 12:00 noon.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 3 – August 17, 2005

Proceeding vs. Complaint

Does the Constitution prohibit more than one impeachment complaint filed against the same individual in one year or does it limit it to one impeachment proceeding in one year ? Given that three complaints are currently filed against President Arroyo – two of them weak complaints filed by her own party – the answer to that question could make a big difference in the outcome of this proceeding and determine whether it might ever make it into the trial stage at the Senate.

It was a battle between technicality and legality on the third day of the impeachment hearings at the House Committee on Justice. The debate continued among members who were given three minutes each for their arguments. The points raised, however, were only reiterations of what was said the previous day.

The so-called “prejudicial question” remained the issue at hand as Administration Representatives contend that it should be answered first before tackling the sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint. Rep. Rolando Andaya Jr. (1st District, Camarines Sur-LP) said the case was unique since there were three separate complaints, the third being filed before the House adopted the rules of procedure on impeachment. He argued it must be first resolved which among the three was to be heard by the committee.

Rep. Eladio Jala (3rd District, Bohol-Lakas-CMD) contested that the first and the third complaint were different, arguing that the amended complaint was an entirely new complaint disguised as an amended complaint. Camarines Sur Rep. Felix Alfelor Jr. (4th District, Camarines Sur-Lakas-CMD) suggested tackling the first complaint first, the second complaint after 12 months, and the third complaint (the Opposition’s) after another 12 months!

Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara (Lone District, Aurora-LDP), however, counter-argued that the prejudicial question was not included in the Constitution nor in the rules on impeachment. He added that all three complaints were all part of one impeachment proceeding. The Constitution bars a proceeding from being initiated against the same person within one year. CIBAC party list Rep. Joel Villanueva stressed that the committee should do away with the technicality. He added that technicality should be used to protect the rights of someone but not to hide the truth.

Rep. Rolex Suplico (5th District, Iloilo-LDP) pointed out that the first and the amended complaints were the same, quoting a former justice saying that the amended complaint is deemed substituting the original and is treated filed at the same time as the original. Rep. Antonio Serapio (2nd District, Valenzuela-NPC) added that the complaints are the same since the complainants and the complained are the same just as similar cases are consolidated by the courts.

A vote is expected on this issue next week.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 4– August 23, 2005

Voting Along Party Lines…for now

Day 4 of the Impeachment Hearings ended with a majority vote in favor of tackling the seven “prejudicial questions” proposed by Rep. Edcel Lagman (1st District, Albay–Aksyon Demokratiko). The vote (54 in favor, 24 against, 3 abstentions) followed party lines.

The Agenda for the day was last week’s Unfinished Business on which of the three complaints the committee should consider. Among the more interesting arguments was one posed by Rep. Teddy Locsin (1st District, Makati–PDP-Laban) who argued that Congress had its own concept of time, pointing to the fact that Congress was known to even stop time during key deliberations on important legislation in order to meet deadlines. Observing that all three impeachment complaints were filed during the Congressional recess, he argued that their filing in committee was contemporaneous and that time differences in the order of filing when the committee convened were immaterial. In fact, Speaker Jose de Venecia earlier stated that he welcomed all impeachment complaints to be filed at the committee in an attempt to show that Congress was open to a fair and transparent impeachment hearing.

Instead of arguing over which complaint came first, Locsin argued that the committee should consolidate the amended complaint as a “bill of particulars” to the Lozano complaint, in support of the editorial by constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ in his editorial entitled Betrayal of Public Trust in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 22 August 2005.

In the end, the Majority simply railroaded the vote, which was decided by simply calling on members to stand up and be counted. A “Yes” vote would mean to go on discussing Lagman’s prejudicial questions and voting on each question. A “No” vote would mean not to discuss and go straight to the more critical votes on the form and substance of the complaint. Although debates were long and slow, votes were counted in record time by a Committee staff, with the Majority carrying the 54-24 vote. Reps. Arnulfo Fuentebella (3rd District, Camarines Sur–NPC), Crispin Remulla (3rd District, Cavite–Partido Magdalo) and Antonino Roman (1st District, Bataan-LP) all abstained.

Meanwhile, the impeachment complaint gained five endorsers as Reps. Gilbert Remulla (2nd District, Cavite-NP), Robert “Ace” Barbers (2nd District, Surigao del Norte-Lakas-CMD), Edmund Reyes (Lone District, Marinduque-Lakas-CMD), Robert Jaworski (Lone District, Pasig-Lakas-CMD) and Renato Magtubo (Party-list Partido ng Manggagawa) signed the complaint bringing to 47 the total number of complainants. A total of 79 is needed to bring the case to trial in the Senate.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 5 – August 24, 2005

Stuck on Square One

After limiting the number of prejudicial questions previously raised by Rep. Edcel Lagman (1st District, Albay-Aksyon Demokratiko) from seven to two, the House Justice Committee continued with its debate, by now the predictable one on which complaint of the three to tackle. Belaboring the point, the committee gave both the Majority and the Opposition an hour and a half each to argue their respective points.

The Majority, represented by Reps. Salacnib Baterina (1st District, IIocos Sur – Lakas), Mauricio Domogan (Lone District - Baguio), Luis Villafuerte (3rd District, Camarines Sur - NPC), Oscar Gozos (4th District, Batangas – Lakas, CMD), Matias Defensor, Jr. (3rd District, Quezon City - LP), Isidoro Real, Jr. (1st District, Zamboanga del Sur – Lakas-CMD), and Monico Puentevella (Lone District, Bacolod - Lakas), argued that the amended impeachment complaint filed by the minority against President Arroyo on 25 July 2005 was a new and separate complaint from the original complaint filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano on 27 June 2005 because it introduced new courses of action and raised new allegations against the President.

The Opposition, represented by Reps. Ronaldo Zamora (Lone District, San Juan - PMP), Loretta Ann Rosales (Party-list Akbayan), Jacinto Paras (1st District, Negros Oriental-LDP), Liza Maza (Party-list Gabriela), Rolex Suplico (5th District, Iloilo-LDP), and Clavel Martinez (4th District, Cebu-Lakas), argued that the minority complaint merely amended the Lozano complaint. According to Zamora, “the amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and, in fact, corrects the defects and completes the original.” He stated that the Constitution, the Rules of Impeachment of the 11th Congress, and the supplementary Rules of Court do not prohibit the amendment of an impeachment complaint.

But after an hour each of debate by both panels, the committee ended up where it began – stuck in square one before adjourning. The Justice Committee is expected to wind up the debate and vote on the first prejudicial question when it resumes deliberations on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 at 12:30 p.m.

The next prejudicial issue to be resolved is whether or not the amended complaint and the Lopez complaint are barred by the one year Constitutional ban against initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same official.

What is Wrong with Magsaysay – not Ramon, but Eulogio?

26 August 2005—Congressman Eulogio Magsaysay (Party-list AVE) a few weeks ago stepped forward to say that he was offered a bribe to withdraw his endorsement of the impeachment complaint. On August 24, he did exactly that, withdrawing his signature from the complaint saying that his intent was to sign as an endorser and not as a complainant. He also said he did not do a thorough reading before signing the complaint. He did, however, say that he was willing to change his mind in the future.

That withdrawal makes him the first representative to withdraw his signature from among the original 41 endorsers. Rep. Antonio Alvarez (1st District, Palawan – Kampi), the endorser of the second complaint (Lopez complaint), technically was the first to withdraw his endorsement but he later filed a revocation of his withdrawal.

In the meantime, six others endorsed the amended complaint on 24 August: Representatives Arthur Pinggoy, Jr. (2nd District, South Cotabato-NPC), Gilbert Remulla (2nd District, Cavite-NP), Robert “Ace” Barbers (2nd District, Surigao del Norte-Lakas-CMD), Edmund Reyes (Lone District, Marinduque-Lakas-CMD), Robert Jaworski (Lone District, Pasig-Lakas-CMD) and Renato Magtubo (Party-list Partido ng Manggagawa), bringing to 46 the total number of signatures on the complaint.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 6 – August 30, 2005

The Truth Aborted; Opposition Walks Out

Privilege speeches cut short, an Opposition walkout, and a changed calendar – those were the basic ingredients used to complete the demolition job on the impeachment complaint that President Arroyo said she would be willing to face. The Administration railroad to the dismissal of the impeachment complaints picked up steam after five slow days of hearings. The pace picked up markedly after members of the Hyatt 10 disclosed in a public forum earlier that morning that the Lozano complaint had been filed on the same morning that Mrs. Arroyo made her admission of the conversations with the Comelec and apologized.

Former Social Welfare Secretary Dinky Soliman stated that she heard Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs Gabriel Claudio report to the President after her televised apology that the Lozano complaint was filed earlier that day. Soliman said the President then asked Claudio whether the complaint had been endorsed by a Congressman. Reporting that it had not yet been endorsed, Claudio was directed by the President to find someone to endorse the complaint. Claudio allegedly said they were talking with Rep. Rodante Marcoleta about his endorsement. Claudio denies the conversation ever took place although Marcoleta eventually did endorse the complaint on June 29.

Former Secretary of Education Florencio Abad also disclosed that when the President was given the recommendation that she remove Pagcor Chairman Efraim Genuino, a close associate of the Arroyo’s, from office, Mrs. Arroyo replied that she needed Genuino because he “takes care of the media and the Bishops.”

Malacañang immediately replied with a press conference of its own by noon and the House Committee shifted into higher gear by the afternoon. The Justice Committee continued the debate on the first of two prejudicial questions on whether the Opposition’s impeachment complaint was distinct and separate from the original Lozano complaint.

Rep. Roilo Golez (2nd District, Parañaque- Independent) argued to consolidate the three complaints into one unified complaint. Rep. Teodoro Locsin (1st District, Makati–PDP-Laban) supported the argument to consolidate the complaints so as not to limit the choices of the members by choosing the one that is weak. He, however, pointed out that Congress was treating the impeachment in a partisan and political manner and not so much to know the truth.

In a point of order, Rep. Jacinto Paras (1st District, Negros Oriental–LDP) asked, “Why vote on something that is inexistent,” since the first complaint was not verified, while the second one was already withdrawn. But Committee Chairman Simeon Datumanong (2nd District, Maguindanao–Lakas-CMD) ruled that Paras’ motion was premature, saying that they had not yet reached that part of the discussion.

Later on, Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales (Party-list, Akbayan) raised a point of parliamentary inquiry, whether the recent complaint of Lozano against President Arroyo is a modus operandi since he had also filed an impeachment complaint against then Vice-Pres. Arroyo in 2000 (see related story). Rosales was referring to the revelation of former Secretary Dinky Soliman made in a separate press conference in the morning. Datumanong, however, ruled out her observation since they were “not related to the current impeachment complaint.”

With just a few minutes to wrap up the Opposition’s argument, Datumanong prevented Rep. Robert “Ace” Barbers (2nd District, Surigao del Norte–Lakas-CMD) from making a privilege speech on the timing of the Lozano filing, sparking a walkout by the Opposition. The chairman called a recess and announced that hearings would resume after a shortened plenary session of the House, ironically one of the rare moments when the House actually had a quorum to conduct its regular business. Taking advantage of the Minority’s absence, the committee resumed session after the shortened plenary session – the first time it had followed such a schedule – and called a vote on the first prejudicial question.

The hearing resumed for voting at around 6 o’clock without the Opposition representatives. As expected, the committee voted 52 in favor, 2 against, and 0 abstentions to make the Opposition’s amended Lozano complaint distinct and separate from the original Lozano complaint. Only Majority Reps. Teodoro Locsin and Antonino Roman (1st District, Bataan--LP) voted against.

Proceedings will resume on 31 August, Wednesday to vote on the second prejudicial question, whether the first complaint bars the two succeeding complaints. The answer to that will be a foregone conclusion.



Believe It or Not

2 September 2005— Atty. Oliver Lozano, the principal author of the impeachment complaint just voted down by the House Committee on Justice, is no stranger to filing impeachment complaints.

On November 8, 2000, an impeachment complaint was filed against then-Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on the grounds of culpable violation of the constitution based on her call for then-President Joseph Estrada to resign. A party-mate endorsed the complaint, saying that it was for Arroyo’s good as it would provide her an opportunity to clear suspicions against her.

The complaint was also voted down by the House Justice Committee, thus providing Mrs. Arroyo a one-year immunity from another impeachment complaint being filed against her. Indeed, another impeachment complaint was consequently barred by the committee. This time it was filed by lawyer Ric Valmonte against Mrs. Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, over alleged undeclared real estate properties in San Francisco listed under the name of a relative.

If all this is beginning to sound familiar, the same form of inoculation tactic against future impeachment complaints has been – coincidentally or not – played out in this year’s impeachment complaint against President Arroyo.

Oliver Lozano filed both complaints, the first on November 8, 2000 and the second on June 27, 2005. Both were endorsed by party-mates, the first by Surigao Rep. Prospero Pichay and the second by Sectoral Rep. Rodante Marcoleta, Both complaints met the same fate – rejected by the House Committee on Justice.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 7 – August 31, 2005

Dead on Arrival
Even Marcoleta did not defend his own complaint

On Day 7 of the impeachment hearings, the House Committee of Justice killed all three impeachment complaints and laid them to rest. The five-page Lozano complaint, labeled by the Minority as designed to fail, did exactly that – but not before the committee first voted that it had the effect of blocking all other complaints filed before the committee and for a period of the next 12 months. The outcome of the case came as no surprise.

Sensing the outcome to the second prejudicial question, the pro-impeachment group sent only one representative to speak on its behalf, Rep. Edmund Reyes (Lone District, Marinduque, Lakas-CMD) – himself a member of the Majority. Reyes argued that the impeachment proceeding was supposed to uncover the truth but the Majority was preventing the whole process from moving towards that direction. In an effort to convince the committee, he showed a brown envelope containing the names of 23 congressmen who reportedly committed to sign the pro-impeachment complaint in case the total reaches 79 but did not reveal their names. Reyes said that with this recent addition, they were now only six votes shy of impeaching the President. He left the floor after asking for the six more votes.

While the gallery crowd applauded, the appeal fell on deaf ears. Infuriated by being labeled “anti-truth” or “co-conspirator,” pro-Arroyo congressmen blamed the Opposition for being remiss in not filing a complaint ahead of Lozano as the reason for their inability to get 79 votes. Rep. Benjamin Abalos, Jr. (Lone District, Mandaluyong City-Lakas-CMD) – whose father chairs the Commission on Election – rebutted Reyes, saying that the Majority also wanted to uphold the truth and said calling Marcoleta’s endorsement “planned” was prejudiced and unfair.

The committee resumed the previous day’s agenda to answer the second prejudicial question on whether or not the Lozano complaint barred other complaints from being initiated within a period of one year. Unlike previous hearings, however, there were few arguments on Day 7 because there was no Opposition in attendance.

As expected, the majority voted “yes” with 48 votes on the second prejudicial question. Only four voted against it and one abstained. Rep. Douglas Cagas (1st District, Davao del Sur-NPC) said the 10-minute time difference in filing the amended complaint spelled the difference and made the amended complaint a totally different complaint. But Rep. Teodoro Locsin (1st District, Makati–PDP Laban) argued that the time differences in the order of filing were immaterial and the three complaints were legally filed simultaneously. He pointed to Congress’ own concept of time as key to explaining why the other complaints should not be barred but consolidated as supplements to the Lozano complaint. Rep. Crispin Remulla (3rd District, Cavite-Magdalo) argued that the consequence of the committee’s vote to treat the Lozano complaint only may be to set off a race for the next impeachment complaint to be filed in the House next year.

The vote on sufficiency in form of the Lozano complaint was also resolved in relatively short order. Forty-six ruled that the complaint was sufficient in form in the first count but minutes later, one representative asked for the inclusion of her vote after noticing that the total was one vote short of the required number. None voted against and only one abstained.

Continuing the script for the day, the Majority voted the complaint was insufficient in substance, thereby effectively killing the complaint and the entire process that goes with it. Even Rep. Rodante Marcoleta (Alagad Party-list), endorser of the Lozano complaint, did not defend the sufficiency of substance of the complaint. Rep. Romualdo Vicencio (2nd District, Northern Samar-Lakas-CMD) stated that the taped conversations were inadmissible as evidence in court. He added that the mere possession of the tape was punishable by law. But Locsin, the lone congressman who voted “no” on most issues, argued the wiretapped conversation was not the only grounds for impeaching the President. The specific act of electoral fraud constitutes betrayal of public trust, and, is in itself, an impeachable offense under the Constitution. He also argued that the issue be extensively discussed at the plenary and not at the committee level. The committee proceeded with the voting anyway. Wrapping up the script for the day, the committee dismissed all three complaints by a vote of 46 – 1, with Locsin once again the lone dissenting vote among the Majority.

At exactly 8:37 p.m. of Day 7 of the impeachment trial, the Lozano complaint was declared dead. Diagnosis: lack of substance despite being declared substantial in form. Attending physicians: 49 pro-administration congressmen with the exception of a few who made attempts to revive it. Recommendation: Bring the case to the plenary and muster 79 votes to overturn Committee Report and recommend the amended compliant to Senate. Contra-indication: Eighty-percent of the House (189 of 236 congressmen) have pledged support for President Arroyo based on House Speaker Jose de Venecia’s (4th District, Pangasinan-Lakas-CMD) earlier declaration.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 8 – September 5, 2005

Grand Conspiracy

The first two-and-a-half hours of the session were filled with privilege speeches of varying lengths. Mondays are usually reserved for privilege speeches. The Opposition, obviously still lacking the 79 votes they needed to overturn Committee Report No. 1012, used the privilege hour to present evidence of lying and cheating by President Arroyo in an effort to win over indecisive lawmakers.

Rep. Rodante Marcoleta (Alagad Party-list) lashed out at former Social Welfare Sec. Dinky Soliman for accusing him of being used by Malacañang to endorse the flawed Lozano complaint. Rep. Rodolfo Plaza (Lone District, Agusan del Sur-NPC) rose to Soliman’s defense, stating that personal attacks should not be allowed in the House.

Meanwhile, Rep. Gilbert Remulla (2nd District, Cavite-NP) reported to the House a “cover up and conspiracy” in the disappearance of former COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. “It is astonishing that Garcillano had so much influence over the Air Transportation Office (ATO), the Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Immigration (BI),” he said. He urged Congress to continue the search for Garcillano and compel him to tell the truth about the wiretap scandal. He also asked officials of the ATO and BI to resign, as well as for Subic Air’s franchise to be revoked, as it purportedly allowed one of its chartered flights to be used for Garcillano’s escape.

Rep. Clavel Martinez (4th District, Cebu-Lakas) accused the President and First Gentleman Mike Arroyo of pressuring her nephew-in-law, Mario Espinosa (former presidential assistant for Bicol and son of former Masbate Rep. Moises Espinosa), to deny at the Senate hearing that he was a jueteng bagman in Masbate. Martinez also said Michaelangelo Zuce, an eyewitness to alleged bribery of poll officials at the private house of the President, is a credible witness.

Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano (Lone District, Taguig-Pateros-NP), in a power point presentation, showed the President’s alleged violations of the Penal and Election Codes, as suggested in her conversations with Garcillano. He accused the Administration of a grand conspiracy to cheat in the 2004 elections by the padding of the voter’s list and the overprinting of election forms. He said the tampered election returns could be linked to the 33,000 excess ERs that COMELEC Commissioner Resurreccion Borra had admitted to have been overprinted. Prior to the elections, he said a “shadowy group” led by an Administration congressman housed their vote-padding operation at the fifth floor of Horizon Hotel. He said that Garcillano (aka “Garci”) was the liaison officer between politicians, election officials, and the military. “Garci was the paymaster for bribes to election officials,” he added. He also showed the alleged attempted kidnapping of the camp of President Arroyo against a certain Rashma Hali, an election official in Tipo-Tipo, Basilan.

Finally, Rep. Francis Escudero (1st District, Sorsogon-NPC) defended the opposition in the last few minutes of the privilege hour. He said they have tried their best to get at the truth using democratic processes, but the President obviously had no intention of answering the charges against her. Escudero said, “her silence is deafening.”

By the third hour of the onslaught of speeches, Rep. Arnulfo Fuentebella (3rd District, Camarines Sur-NPC) announced his resignation as vice-chair of the Committee on Justice and his intent to sign the impeachment complaint.

At 10:00 p.m., the congressmen took a break.



Impeachment Hearings – Day 9 – September 6, 2005

House votes 158-51 to kill impeachment

At past midnight (now 6 September), House Justice Committee Chairman Rep. Simeon Datumanong (2nd District, Maguindano-Lakas-CMD) and Vice-Chairman Rep. Marcelino Libanan (Lone District, Eastern Samar-Lakas) were able to deliver their sponsorship speeches for Committee Report No. 1012, junking the Arroyo impeachment complaints.

The Opposition, however, refused to give up. Reps. Francis Escudero (1st District, Sorsogon-NPC) and Alan Peter Cayetano (Lone District, Taguig-Pateros, NP) took turns grilling Justice Committee Vice-Chairman Luis Villafuerte (2nd District, Camarines Sur, KAMPI) about the committee report.

Rep. Escudero delved on the verification of the Lozano complaint and asked when the report was actually completed and why Opposition members of the committee were not provided copies before the session. Rep. Cayetano objected to the unjustified haste by which the committee had approved its report. He asked that another committee meeting be held to review the report. In scrutinizing the report, he even asked which rulebook of procedures (administrative, civil, or criminal) the committee followed.

Rep. Ronaldo Zamora (Lone District, San Juan-PMP) followed by saying they have documents, witnesses, and more than the wiretapped recordings to prove allegations of election fraud. He claimed that election returns were manufactured late last year at the Mandarin Apartelle on Banawe St. in Quezon City. He spoke of election returns being switched in ballot boxes in Congress. He also asserted that the Opposition has evidence to back up its allegations of corruption and human rights abuses.

Meanwhile, Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales (Akbayan Party-list) said Alagad Rep. Rodante Marcoleta had conspired with Political Affairs Adviser Gabriel Claudio to endorse Lozano’s flawed impeachment complaint. She read a portion of a letter (dated July 21) sent to Claudio by Bernie Cruz, president of Alagad: “You have asked me to withdraw my interest in a Supreme Court case as representative of the Alagad party in favor of Mr. Rodante Marcoleta.” Alagad has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to throw out Marcoleta as Alagad’s representative in Congress.

Rep. Teodoro Locsin, Jr. (1st District, Makati City-PDP Laban) expressed his worries. He asked: Can the President continue to govern and retain support, or is so bereft of support that only a trial can and should determine her fate?

At nearly 4:00 a.m., each representative finally was given three minutes to explain his or her position in a roll-call vote. Voting in favor of Committee Report No. 1012 to dismiss for lack of substance the Lozano impeachment complaint and throw out two other complaints on the ground that only one case can be initiated against an impeachable official in a year were 158 lawmakers, while 51 voted against, and 6 abstained. Twenty-one lawmakers failed to vote. Congress adjourned its grueling marathon session at 3:30 p.m.