Why they belittle Lozano complaint

Gloria Arroyo’s impeachment appears doomed. Yesterday’s House justice committee decision – 54-24-3 – to vote on seven prejudicial issues is a prelude. Today’s voting on whether to accept only the first but frail of three complaints is predictable. So is a ruling on "sufficiency in substance."

Oliver Lozano, lawyer of Arroyo foes Joseph Estrada and the Marcos family, beat the gun on other Opposition bigwigs in filing that first rap. Minority congressmen called it worthless toilet paper. They knew whereof they spoke. How can a President have betrayed public trust by admitting "lapse in judgment," as Lozano charged, let alone for not striking a 75:25 sharing of the Marcos wealth? Trying Arroyo for apologizing or for not negotiating a deal that the Supreme Court had declared illegal would only make the Opposition look silly.

Lozano filed the complaint on June 27, 2005. Three weeks prior, on June 6, the "Hello Garci" tape first caught the public ear. The Opposition was marching in the streets for a people-power uprising that never came. Arroyo spokesmen maintained that no President should dignify an illegal act like wiretapping. Virgilio Garcillano was, going by Opposition reports, preparing to flee the country. With that as backdrop, Lozano charged that Arroyo’s continued silence was tantamount to guilt. Too, Garcillano’s flight was an admission of guilt.

The complaint opened with excerpts of The STAR front-page report of June 26. It quoted former Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma as suggesting impeachment instead of street marches, and Reps. Exequiel Javier and Aurelio Umali as saying the idea was worth considering. Lozano reprinted a June 25 letter to Arroyo from the "Coalition of People Empowerment (COPE), allied with the Coalition for National Solidarity (CNS), headed by Gen. Fortunato Abat (ret.)." The long memo urged Arroyo to go on leave pending the investigation of the "Hello Garci" tape. It even suggested a public statement for Arroyo to read. The signatory was, well, well, well, Lozano no less as counsel of CNS and chairman of COPE. In closing, Lozano stated that Sen. Panfilo Lacson already had his version of the wiretap CD authenticated. Ignoring that Lacson would be sitting as judge in case the complaint reaches the Senate for trial, Lozano said the senator must thus stand as witness, along with Muñoz-Palma, Javier and Umali.

On the night of June 27, Arroyo went on national television to admit having phoned an unnamed Comelec official, apologized for the "lapse in judgment," and exhorted Filipinos to put it behind them. The next day Lozano rushed a supplemental complaint. Quoting portions of the President’s message, he said her admission and apology deserved Christian acceptance, but "the apology does not erase her . . . betrayal of public trust." Congress was then on mandatory 30-day recess before session opening on July 25. Still, Lozano demanded immediate action on his complaint: "Delay in impeachment means stupidity."

On June 29, for the third day in a row, Lozano went to Congress to file a second supplemental complaint. Bolstering his charge of betrayal of public trust, he defined Arroyo’s admission of "lapse in judgment" as "breach of official duty by malfeasance." Too, Arroyo’s "delay in explaining" as "inexcusable negligence of duty." The other pages were repetitions of the original complaint and first supplement.

On June 30 Lozano beat all records for any lawyer’s frequency in visiting Congress. In a third supplement, he culled again from news reports. Said he: "The respondent allowed her husband Mike Arroyo to leave the country although he is scheduled to answer charges for being involved in the Jueteng Scandal. Flight is guilt . . . Allowing her husband to leave, under the circumstances, amounts to cover-up or obstruction of justice in common parlance. Allowing her husband to leave is a breach of official duty by misfeasance or malfeasance, which is an act of betrayal of public trust.

On the fifth day, July 1, came a fourth supplement. He excerpted a newspaper item of the previous day. The Free Legal Assistance Group had opined that Arroyo violated the law by talking to an election commissioner at the height of the 2004 canvassing, and that illegally obtained wiretaps are admissible in impeachment proceedings. Lozano ended: "I ask that Arroyo and Garcillano be subpoenaed to clarify or authenticate in a proper forum the Gloria-gate tape. Likewise, that Lacson and John Doe be subpoenaed to testify on the expert authentication; Justice Muñoz-Palma, UP professors Pacifico Agabin and Antonio Bautista to render expert legal opinion on the sufficiency of the Complaint."

The fifth supplement, on July 4, took the cake. The country was in a "revolutionary situation," Lozano swore. The Supreme Court days before temporarily had stopped the new E-VAT Law to hear its opposers. Still, Lozano said, "the respondent’s approval of the E-VAT Law is a breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance. Therefore, the oppressive E-VAT Law is another act of betrayal of public trust, especially considering the arbitrary, arrogant and persistent refusal of the respondent to . . . meet one-on-one with Madame Imelda Marcos for the purpose of renegotiating the 75:25 compromise agreement on the Marcos wealth as an alternative solution to the economic crisis."

The sixth supplement, on July 5, added two more samples of betrayal of public trust: that Arroyo had thence failed to produce Garcillano, and that she defied three Supreme Court rulings that ditched the no permit-no rally restrictions of certain city governments.

The seventh supplement, on July 21, was Lozano’s knockout punch. He said he had received a CD from ex-Gov. Antonio Villanueva showing Arroyo’s certificate of candidacy to be falsified and her election thus void. "The transcript of the CD will follow shortly," Lozano signed off.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]