Anti-impeachment lawmakers defended President Arroyo on Tuesday at the House committee on justice hearing on the impeachment complaint against her by saying that it failed to implicate the president and described it as merely based on hearsay evidence.

Comparing businessman Jose "Joey" de Venecia III's impeachment raps against President Arroyo to a sandwich without the beef, Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia cited that the complaint, albeit sufficient in form, is yet to be determined for sufficiency in substance.

"When the committee found that the complaint is sufficient in form, it was as if this committee is being offered something which looks like a sandwich in form. But the question that is at the mind of our colleagues is 'Where's the beef? Where is the substance?" he said during the hearing Tuesday of the House Committee of Justice.

Garcia defended Mrs. Arroyo's trip to Shenzhen, China in relation to the controversial ZTE-NBN deal, pointing the failure of the complainant to make a recital of ultimate facts, or truths enough to constitute for an impeachable offense.

"The President and the First Gentleman went to China. That is a fact. But does that constitute an offense? Is going to China an impeachable offense? That's why we have to examine and analyze the complaint," he said.

Citing Rule 3 of the Rules of Impeachment Proceedings, Garcia said that the "requirement as to substance is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense and determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee."

"President Arroyo's trip to China to invite foreign investment is a fact, but that does not constitute an offense. Playing golf and eating rare Shanghai crabs is a fact, according to her former speaker [Jose de Venecia Jr.], but that is not an impeachable offense," he said.

No direct connection

Pro-administration lawmakers also cleared the president from two contracts with China’s ZTE deals by asserting that she did not have direct connection to the contracts because it was her subordinates—Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza and Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Favila—who signed the National Broadband Network (NBN) deal and the deal on Mt. Diwalwal with ZTE Corp..

Negros Oriental Rep. George Arnaiz said that the impeachment complaint failed to implicate the president in the 2004 electoral fraud scandal because the “Hello Garci” tapes are inadmissible as evidence since the recordings violated the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

Arnaiz added that the president cannot be held liable for the spate of human rights violations allegedly done by government forces under her administration through the principle of command responsibility.

“There is no law on command responsibility,” Arnaiz said. “The respondent did not commit or condone the acts of the government forces.”

“No link to ZTE”

Pasig City Rep. Roman Romulo said the complaint failed to link the president to the alleged bribery in the ZTE deal. Romulo added that the president was not even present in the meeting between First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and Joey de Venecia where they discussed the NBN-ZTE contract.

 “It failed to specify the act of the president that will justify the act of direct bribery,” Romulo said.

Romulo added that the acts of the First Gentleman and former Commission on Elections (Comelec)  Benjamin Abalos cannot be attributed to the president. “It was he [Abalos] and not the president who asked money from the ZTE official.”

“The allegations regarding the First Gentleman, even if it is true, is not related to the president,” Roman said. “There is no conspiracy in being married to an erring spouse.”

“No link to fertilizer fund, Malacañang dole outs”

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr., meanwhile, said the complaint also failed to link Arroyo to the alleged distribution of money to lawmakers and local officials in exchange for their support for the “weak” impeachment complaint filed lawyer Rafael Pulido.

“She did not authorize the distribution of money to support the weak impeachment,” Barzaga said.

Endorsers of the impeachment complaint believe that the around 190 representatives and a number of local officials received money ranging from P200,000 to P500,000 pesos to support Pulido’s complaint.

On Monday, former House Speaker Jose De Venecia said that he was removed as House Speaker and chair of Lakas party because he refused to support the “weak” impeachment complaint against Arroyo.

Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, meanwhile, cleared Arroyo from the allegations of graft and corruption in connection with the release of P728-million fertilizer fund to lawmakers and local officials.

Opposition lawmakers believe that the fund was used to boost Arroyo’s campaign coffers for the 2004 presidential election.

“There is no allegation that the president authorized the implementation and disbursement of the funds,” Domogan said. “She has not signed or approved any vouchers for the release of the fund.”

“Just hearsay”

Administration lawmakers said the complaint is “insufficient in substance” because it is based on newspaper clippings and hearsay, which are not admissible in the court.

Domogan said the complaint is a mere product of assertions, conjectures and suspicions. “Newspaper clippings are not evidence. They are just hearsay,” he said.

Earlier, some pro-impeachment lawmakers threatened to withdraw from the proceedings after committee chair Rep. Matias Defensor refused to decide on the allegation of Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr.  that the complaint was a falsified document.

Barzaga said that impeachment complaint was a falsified document because it was notarized on Oct. 10, 2008 but was executed on Oct.11, 2008.

Rep. Manuel Zamora then asked Defensor to act on the accusation of Barzaga. “The complainants have been here for the past two days trying to make a case,” he said.

Defensor, however, said that the committee has no jurisdiction to determine if is falsified or not. This prompted former Speaker Jose de Venecia and Rep. Teofisto Guingona III to walk out of the session.

Barzaga agreed to withdraw his statement to allow the proceeding to continue. The session resumed and the remaining pro-impeachment lawmakers agreed to stay.

Zamora said that the committee should have raised the issue when the committee determined the complaint’s “sufficiency in form” last week.

“They should have raised it before and not now,” said Zamora.

Defensor, however, said that he was surprised that the issue was raised.

The justice committee found the complaint “sufficient in form” last Tuesday and is now determining its “sufficiency in substance”. A summation of arguments is expected tomorrow. (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)

---

INTERACT WITH THIS ARTICLE