Ethics complaint vs JDV raised to divert attention from ZTE scandal
I write in response to Federico Pascual’s column of
Complainant peddling rumor and scandal
Pulido’s complaint is obviously meant merely to harass the Speaker and to divert public attention from the ZTE broadband scandal, since under Congressional rules a Member may be charged only for acts constituting disorderly behavior committed during his present term of office.
Hence, this 14th House has no legal jurisdiction over violations of House rules that, according to Pulido’s allegations, took place in 1995 and 1997-during the 9th and 10th Congresses.
This rule is well-known among lawyers, so that we may conclude reasonably that Pulido is not really seeking justice. He is merely peddling rumor and scandal.
Setting the record straight
To set the record straight, please let me answer Pulido’s allegations, as echoed by Pascual.
Pulido alleges that, in 1993, while de Venecia was first-term Speaker, his son, Jose de Venecia III, organized Multi-Media Telephony, Inc. (MTI), and was both its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). This is false.
The truth is to be found in MTI’s corporate papers filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. MTI applied for registration on
Pulido’s second allegation was that, in 1995, Joey sought a legislative franchise for his MTI from the House. This too is false. The truth is to be found in the records of both the House and the Senate, as well as in SEC documents.
MTI’s franchise application was initiated with House Bill No. 13759 ( 25 July 1994) introduced by then Congressmen Neil Tupas, Jose Zubiri, Jr., Celestino Martines, Jr., and others-but not including Speaker Jose de Venecia.
Based on the records of the House, the sponsorship speech of Rep. Zubiri Jr. was dispensed with and the bill’s explanatory note adopted during the Plenary deliberations on the MTI franchise bill presided over by Rep. Cirilo Montejo of
HB 13759 was forwarded to the Senate which approved the same with minor amendments and eventually became Republic Act No. 7908 (February 23, 1995). At that time, Joey was not connected with MTI in any way.
In 1997 the MTI franchise was amended-allowing it to engage in the business of providing broadband services. At this point, Joey de Venecia — a professional in communications technology — had become a shareholder in MTI. Eventually, he was elected to the MTI Board and then president and CEO.
No law or charter provision was violated
At this juncture, the issue is this: “Was there any provision of the Constitution or of Law that Speaker Jose de Venecia and/or his son violated when MTI received its expanded franchise, considering that JDV was then a member of the House and its Speaker?”
The answer is simply: “None!”
It is true that no Senator or Representative may be directly or indirectly interested in any contract, franchise or special privilege granted by the State. It is also true that this prohibition extends to the lawmaker’s wife and unemancipated children.
But this prohibition is personal: it excludes other close kin (father, mother, brothers, sisters) and even children of age.
The allegation that the Speaker allowed his son to obtain a franchise, and then to broaden its operating authority, is false and malicious. The Speaker’s personal participation in the approval of any law is simply to affix his signature to the enrolled bill after it has been approved by both Houses.
Senate also examined the MTI franchise bid
I must also point out that the MTI franchise application was examined not only by the House but also by the Senate. The independence of mind of Filipino senators is legendary. Any constitutional or legal prohibition applicable to MTI or to Joey de Venecia and the Speaker would have certainly been raised there.
AHI’s B-O-T proposal a private undertaking
That, in November 2006, Joey de Venecia submitted, through Amsterdam Holdings, Inc. (AHI), an unsolicited proposal to set up a B-O-T broadband network for Government is true. But this was a 100-percent private undertaking that involved no government loan, risk or guaranty. The Speaker had nothing to do with this venture of his “emancipated child’s” corporation.
As for the meetings between then Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. and Joey de Venecia at the Speaker’s home and at the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club in December 2006, they were held at the Chairman’s insistence. It was Abalos who initially offered to cooperate with AHI in building the NBN network-although, according to Joey de Venecia’s affidavit, he later on wanted to do it with ZTE.
Pascual also mentions a letter said to have been written by an Ernesto Garcia of AHI that seems to involve the Speaker’s Office. Speaker de Venecia has no personal knowledge of its contents. Correspondence forwarded to the Speaker’s office is voluminous; the bulk of it is handled by the Speaker’s staff without his personal knowledge.
As for Secretary Romulo Neri’s “closeness” to the de Venecias, this is the result of his brilliant work as head of the Congressional Planning and Budget Office. Recruited by Speaker Ramon V. Mitra, Neri was kept on when JDV first became Speaker in 1992.
These are the facts behind the falsehoods Pulido is peddling. It is unfortunate that Mr. Pascual has allowed himself to be used by political manipulators whose interest lies not in uncovering the truth but in covering up the ZTE scandal and in getting back at the Speaker and his son for their forthright stand on this brazen example of corruption in office. — RAUL LAMBINO, Counsel for Speaker de Venecia
- Latest
