House panel to JDV: Answer Pulido complaint

The House committee on ethics approved yesterday a proposal to require Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. to answer the charges of misconduct that lawyer Roel Pulido has filed against him.

Romblon Rep. Eleandro Madrona, committee chairman, said the panel decided to seek the Speaker’s answer before deciding whether to dismiss the Pulido case or conduct further hearings on the complaint.

He said the committee decision is consistent with its rules.

Pulido filed the case against De Venecia in connection with the testimony of Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza on the controversial $329-million national broadband network (NBN) deal in the Senate.

Mendoza had claimed that De Venecia, during a breakfast meeting held at the Speaker’s residence, lobbied for the NBN proposal of his son Jose de Venecia III, stockholder of Amsterdam Holdings Inc. and the whistleblower in the NBN scandal.

The elder De Venecia admitted he met with Mendoza but denied he lobbied for his son’s proposal.

The Speaker said what he discussed with Mendoza was the need to undertake the NBN project under the various schemes enumerated in the build-operate-transfer (BOT) law.

These schemes would not require a government loan or guarantee, as against the NBN contract of Chinese firm ZTE Corp., which would be funded by a loan from the Chinese Import-Export Bank, he said.

President Arroyo has scrapped the ZTE-NBN deal due to the controversy it has created.

The Madrona panel, which is dominated by members of the De Venecia-led majority, rejected a motion presented by Tawi-Tawi Rep. Nur Jaafar that the case against the Speaker be dismissed.

Jaafar read a provision in the rules which provides that when the alleged offense or offenses against a House member took place outside the life of the Congress to which the accused belonged, the committee has no jurisdiction over the case.

He said in the case of De Venecia, the alleged act of wrongdoing, if there was any, happened not during the present Congress.

Besides, he said there is another provision in the rules that when a similar case is pending before a quasi-judicial or judicial body, the complaint in the ethics committee would have to await the resolution of the case in that body.

He pointed out aside from the committee on ethics, Pulido has filed his complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.

“If we will eventually dismiss this case pursuant to our rules, why should we waste our time requiring the Speaker to make his comments?” asked.

Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, who was the only panel member from the opposition who attended the hearing, objected to Jaafar’s motion. Madrona then ruled in favor of Rodriguez, a ruling that other members from the majority supported.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed a resolution yesterday seeking a Senate investigation into the allegedly onerous terms and conditions imposed on the Philippine government in the contract to build the North Rail system funded by the Chinese government.

Pimentel filed Resolution 210 urging the Senate to direct the appropriate Senate committee to undertake the probe and to recommend measures to ensure compliance with the government’s procurement process.

Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile had also accused Speaker De Venecia of interfering in the North Rail project.

Documents showed that the government borrowed $400 million from China’s Export-Import Bank to finance the rehabilitation and modernization of the first phase of the North Rail which is a 32-kilometer stretch from Caloocan City to Malolos, Bulacan. The government has provided a $103-million counterpart fund for the project.

Then Finance Secretary Juanita Amatong signed a Buyer Credit Loan Agreement with China’s Eximbank on Feb. 26, 2004, after it was cleared by Assistant Government Corporate Counsel Efren Gonzales and approved by then National Economic and Development Authority Director General Romulo Neri.

Pimentel cited reports that $125.75 million (P6.5 billion) has already been advanced out of the $503-million funding, and yet the project, scheduled to be completed in May this year, appears to be heading nowhere.

The loan was allegedly made without the approval of the Monetary Board as required by Article VII Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution.

“The contract for the project is not only overpriced, but is also ridden with onerous conditions especially in case of default in the payment of the loan,” Pimentel said.

In another onerous provision of the loan agreement, the Philippine government will waive its immunity from suit over its sovereign and patrimonial assets, placing under China’s laws and jurisdiction any suit or judgment that might arise from the contract and granting Eximbank the unilateral authority to determine payment schedules and the right to impose penalties for any delay in the project.

Pimentel also questioned why the loan agreement between the Philippines and Eximbank designated the China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. as the contractor for the North Rail project in flagrant violation of the Government Procurement Reform Act (Republic Act 9184) requiring that projects like this should be subjected to competitive public bidding.

He said the Senate inquiry would also determine whether there was prior appropriation of public funds and certification of availability of funds by proper authorities before the railway project was awarded and implemented. - With Christina Mendez