The CA transportation committee headed by Rep. Rafael Nantes of Quezon is scheduled to hear today charges against Bebot that conflict of interests, among other misconduct, renders him unfit for a Cabinet post.
Despite Nantes’ known closeness to Alvarez, some committee members have served notice that the controversial secretary shall not pass.
One accusation against him is that he was biased in his handling of the government’s controversial contract with the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. for the building and operation of Terminal-3 of the international airport, because his family’s firm Wintrack Builders is/was a sub-contractor of PIATCO.
When the Congress recessed before the yearend without acting on the long-pending nominations of the Alvarezes – in effect bypassing them together with other Cabinet nominees whose cases were not taken up – President Arroyo promptly nominated again all those bypassed except the two Alvarezes.
When asked about the unusual oversight, Presidential spokesman Rigoberto Tiglao mumbled something about their nominations probably getting snagged along the way (while those of the others were not?) enroute to the CA. Really?
After a palpable delay, and presumably some frantic pakiusapan, the President resubmitted their nominations. Palace sources said that the controversial duo was nominated again on condition that they, and not the President, would follow up their own confirmation.
His SAL showed that he used "cash advances" to acquire the property, one of several assets with a total value of P36,880,000. (With a P8.5-million bank loan as his only liability, his net worth reflected in his SAL is P28,380,000.)
Aside from checking where Bebot got the "cash advances," some CA members are looking into reports that the Magallanes property is worth much more and that it is Wintrack that’s building it.
Section 3(5), Article XI, says: "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."
With the preponderance of evidence in the minutes of the Constitutional Commission that the reckoning of the one-year ban starts with the filing of the verified complaint – and not the promulgation of a committee report or the plenary action of the chamber – focus is now on the House rules of procedure governing impeachment.
Section 16 of House Rule V says in part: " . . . impeachment proceedings against such official are deemed initiated on the day the Committee on Justice finds that the verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the case may be, is sufficient in substance or on the date the House votes to overturn or affirm the finding of the said Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the case may be, is not sufficient in substance."
The same section continues: "In cases where a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment is filed or endorsed, as the case may be, by at least one-third of the Members of the House, impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General."
Under those rules, the complaint is deemed initiated only (1) when the Committee on Justice rules that the complaint is sufficient in substance, or (2) when the entire House overturns by a vote of one-third of all its members a finding of the committee that the complaint is not sufficient in form.
Since the first complaint against Desierto has not been declared sufficient in substance, under the House rule, it is not deemed to have been initiated. Therefore, there is as yet no ban against the filing of another complaint against Desierto.
Rep. Augusto Syjuco Jr. of Iloilo earlier tried this route, but the Supreme Court rejected his petition questioning the House rules. Telling the solon that the high tribunal is the wrong venue for such action, Syjuco was advised to go to the Regional Trial Court.
Being the party directly affected, Desierto can question before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the House rules if the chamber uses them to affirm or endorse the impeachment complaint for trial before the Senate.
But such a major legal skirmish before the high court may be avoided if the campaign to muster at least 73 signatures dies in the chamber.
Earlier, he flew off the handle and accused Speaker Jose de Venecia of being partial in favor of the Ombudsman. Such a delicate charge, a most difficult thing to prove, is a public relations disaster.
The complainant violated the basic rule that one should not open more than one warfront than he can handle. In his desperation, the complainant shut out his possibly getting at least the sympathy of the Speaker, who wields power and influence in the chamber.
If it is true he did this, it was a stupid antic. Evardone, who is co-host of a daily public affairs program over dzAR with Conrad Banal and lawyer Noli Eala, is not the type who could be scared just like that. Besides, he flatly denied the accusation that he was behind a vilification campaign against Francisco, assuming there’s one.
A former political columnist of Malaya and The Manila Times, Evardone said he did not know what Francisco was talking about. This veteran political reporter and former Malacanang assistant executive secretary said he knew the Ombudsman but denied helping him in his impeachment case.
Some friends said that Jinggoy Estrada should be the one to complain about being identified with Linggoy. But, while we heard that Jinggoy has shed some pounds, Linggoy still has several cellphones stuck under his belt – to keep his pants from falling.
He had wanted to wear suspenders, but Larry Henares, who is trying hard to be mistaken for a local clone of Larry King of CNN, has beaten him to this fashion detail. And there’s also former Solicitor General Frank Chavez who sports suspenders when he’s not packing a mean weapon instead of a cellphone under his belt.