House ethics panel junks complaint vs JDV with finality

Forty members of the House committee on ethics and privileges have voted to dismiss with finality the administrative complaint for unethical conduct against Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., citing “utter lack of merit.”

The panel headed by Romblon Rep. Eleandro Madrona submitted Committee Report 25, a 127-page document that was signed by 21 regular committee members and 19 ex-officio members, throwing out the complaint of Magdalo lawyer Roel Pulido.

“Going over the pleadings and over existing laws and legal pronouncements on the subject mater of conflict of interest which is the principal issue raised, it is clear that the allegations in the complaint are completely devoid of merit,” a portion of the ruling read.

“Our collective and multi-partisan decision followed the rules to the letter,” Madrona said, noting that both members of the majority coalition and the minority bloc were united in dismissing the complaint.

De Venecia, who was accused of favoring his son Joey by granting his company legislative franchise in 1995 and 1997, expressed satisfaction over the dismissal, saying he “was confident all along that the complaint totally lacked merit from the day it was conceived.”

Last Dec. 4, the Madrona panel voted 25-0 to dismiss the Pulido complaint, upon the motion of Reps. Mauricio Domogan of Baguio City and Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City. Madrona viewed the complaint as a “political harassment against the Speaker.”

The Speaker’s lawyer, Raul Lambino, earlier said the Pulido complaint was part of an “orchestrated attack to vilify the House leader.”

Lambino said it was clear from the start that the committee had no jurisdiction over the complaint. Multi-Media Telephony Inc. (MTI) was granted a franchise in February 1995 and June 1997, which was during the 10th Congress, or four Congresses ago.

The Madrona panel threw out the Pulido complaint, which was filed last September, for “evident lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and for utter lack of merit.”

De Venecia said he could have filed a “one-page-one-paragraph pleading by way of a motion to dismiss” on the basis that the complained acts “have taken place before the term of the present Congress,” but opted to refute the charges point by point nonetheless.

He said he could have invoked technicalities to have the complaint thrown out, for its “failure to state cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and speedy disposition of cases” on the franchise granted to Jose de Venecia III’s Multi-Media Telephony Inc.

The Speaker said Pulido “maliciously made use” of a copy of MTI’s general information in the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 “to create a false and wrongful impression with an apparent intent to mislead the committee that Joey was already connected with MTI.” 

“Joey was not an incorporator much less chairman and chief executive officer of MTI in 1993,” he said.

The five-time Speaker said he cannot be held administratively liable under the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) “simply because Joey was not yet a shareholder nor an officer of MTI when it applied for and was granted a legislative franchise.”