FOR some in civil-society groups, the impeachment case against Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. will be a problem that will remain in the confines of Intramuros, where the poll body’s office is located. It won’t cross over to Mendiola, in Malacañang, where President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo holds office.

“The impeachment hearings against Abalos will push through, but it will stop before it reaches the president,” says Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform (IPER).

Earlier, Romulo Neri, former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director-general, testified before the Senate that Abalos offered him a P200-million bribe in connection with the $329-million National Broadband Network (NBN) deal. Neri’s testimony is now one of the vital grounds in the impeachment case filed by Iloilo Vice Governor Rolex Suplico.

The impeachment complaint charges Abalos with betrayal of the public trust, culpable violations of the Constitution, bribery and corruption in connection with the NBN project.

Read Suplico’s impeachment complaint.

Neri, however, stopped short at revealing the part played by Arroyo that led to the approval of the NBN deal under a loan agreement, despite her earlier pronouncements that she wanted the project pursued under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) scheme. A GMANews.tv exclusive report reveals Arroyo has given the green light to two Cabinet members to negotiate with China’s ZTE Corporation for the contract, even before NEDA could begin evaluating the project.

“It will not reach the level of the president because Neri stopped with Abalos,” says Casiple. He adds that Abalos’s fate will depend on which way House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr.’s “core group” will swing. Neri was chief of the congressional planning and budget office for 12 years, first under the late Speaker Ramon Mitra, and later, under de Venecia.

Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales demanded that all government officials linked to the deal be punished, “from the highest to the lowest,” urging Congress not to be “selective.”

For now, Casiple says IPER will insist that Abalos immediately go on leave while he faces impeachment.

But San Juan Rep. Ronaldo Zamora, in a television interview, urged Abalos to “spare the country the mess it will go through” with another impeachment case. “He should do the best under the circumstances, which is to resign,” he said. Abalos, who retires in February, has however ruled that out.

2 Responses to How far will Abalos impeachment case go?

Avatar

naykika

September 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am

Have one question to raise regarding if there is an immunity for Committing Crimes granted individuals who can be removed from position only by Impeachment and Trial by Senate?

The way this NBN case develops, Abalos is not only alleged to put his Position as a constitutional body head in Disrepute but also accused of High Crimes of Corruptions. And the “whistle blower” JVD the III, has also violated some laws, which as far as I know, was not taken up or investigated by the only Authorities that can Enforce the Law of the Land, the Police and the Judicial
System. The Congress is not the proper Authority to investigate wrongdoings, it is a Legislative Body and even its Members are subject to Investigation by the Police…

Avatar

baycas

October 1st, 2007 at 6:42 am

depends on how far andaya will be able to allocate grease money.

—–

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. – It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.

There are provision/s that might have been met to say that JDV3’s transactions are lawful, e.g., if he’s already into that kind of business prior to year 1992 when JDV Jr. assumed speakership…and so on and so forth.

Comment Form