Quash impeach raps, Estrada asks Senate

In his first legal maneuver to try and halt a trial that could unseat him, President Estrada asked the Senate yesterday to throw out the impeachment case against him due to technical flaws.

Members of the prosecution panel from the House of Representatives said they would move to quash the petition on Monday.

The motion to dismiss the charges, filed by Mr. Estrada’s lawyers, raised questions over the alleged haste by which the House forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate last Nov. 13.

There was no vote on the impeachment complaint by the full House. Las Piñas Rep. Manuel Villar Jr., who was then the Speaker, ruled that a vote was unnecessary because more than the required one-third of the members had signed a petition endorsing the impeachment.

Estelito Mendoza, a former justice secretary and solicitor general who is a member of Mr. Estrada’s defense panel, said those who endorsed the impeachment did so "on the basis of belief not facts."

This violated a constitutional requirement for a preliminary investigation to determine where the charges can be substantiated, he said.

"If it turns out that accusations were false, you can be guilty of perjury," he said in an interview with radio station dzMM.

Allegations by Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson that Mr. Estrada received millions of pesos in payoffs and kickbacks from tobacco taxes prompted the opposition to file charges of bribery, corruption, violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust against the Pre-sident.

In another radio interview, Mendoza said the House failed to satisfy a constitutional requirement that any impeachment complaint must first be verified by members through hearings by the House justice committee "to determine probable cause."

He said it was "very clear that they (congressmen) did not have personal knowledge" of the offenses imputed to the President when House members sent the case to the Senate.

"No hearing was held," said former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, who is also a member of Mr. Estrada’s legal team. "There were add-on signatures. The signatures upon the filing of the complaint were only 38, not 77. The House didn’t hear evidence but instead submitted a report to the plenary. There was no determination of probable cause."

He added: "The House did not take any action on the impeachment. Para silang naging post office lang dito (It appears that they became just a post office). Consequently, you may not say it is the House that initiated the complaint as stated in the Constitution."

Another member of the defense panel, former Manila city fiscal Jose Flaminiano, said there was a "fatal flaw in the transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate."

Prosecution to oppose motion

Minority Leader Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (Lakas, Quezon City), prosecution manager, said they will file an opposition to the motion to quash on Monday.

He said the procedure the House followed in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, which the President’s lawyers are questioning, "was perfectly legal and constitutional," and the impeachment complaint complied with the requirements of the Constitution.

He said even the new, pro-Estrada House leadership recognized this when it swore in the prosecution team and gave it a budget.

Another prosecutor, Rep. Joker Arroyo of Makati, said the filing of a motion to quash by Mr. Estrada’s lawyers, instead of an answer as the Senate required them to do, "is a strategy so readable as it is ominous."

"The defense wants to create a constitutional deadlock between the Senate, the trier, and the House, the accuser. If the Senate, heaven forbid, as much as entertains or calendars the motion despite the absence of a dismissal motion in its rules, it will be forced to rule one way or the other on the President’s motion," he said.

He said if the Senate denies the motion, the President will go to the Supreme Court, and if it grants the motion to quash, the House, through the prosecution, will be forced to elevate the matter to the High Tribunal.

Either way, the defense effectively throws a monkey wrench on the impeachment trial by having the Supreme Court take jurisdiction on a matter in which it has no constitutional role, except that the Chief Justice presides over the trial, the Makati congressman said.

He added that the defense ploy to move the impeachment issue to the Supreme Court will delay the trial until the election campaign period next year, "when both senators and congressmen would be out campaigning and no one will be in the impeachment trial."

"It betrays the bad faith of Malacañang. While the President has repeatedly said that he wants a speedy trial so that he can clear his name, he allows his lawyers to throw roadblocks that would prevent his trial," he stressed.

Assistant Minority Leader Michael Defensor (LP, Quezon City), a complainant in the impeachment petition, said the motion to quash is intended to "deodorize" the Senate.

The motion, which will surely be dismissed, will project senators as independent after at least one of them made the fearless prediction that the President will be acquitted, he said.

He said even if the defense move is blunted, the nation should remain vigilant and ensure that impeachment jurors are impartial when they hand down their verdict.

If the Senate dismisses the charges on technicalities, they may not be re-introduced for one year. But if the Senate rejects the motion and the trial proceeds, Mr. Estrada could be unseated by a two-thirds vote on a finding of guilt on any of the charges.

Senate President Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said he would ask Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide, who is the presiding officer of the trial, to rule on the motion.

Pimentel said he would specifically ask Davide to determine whether the latter could rule on the dismissal motion on his own.

"If it is necessary, the impeachment court would convene immediately" ahead of the trial to rule on the motion through a simple majority vote of the members present, he added.

Samar Rep. Antonio Eduardo Nachura, one of the 11 House prosecutors, said Mr. Estrada’s lawyers were within their rights to place the issue on record, "otherwise they would have been deemed to have waived" their objections if they were to raise it only during the trial.

"This is not intended to delay, except that, what will actually happen in effect is, there will be of course a slight delay" in the trial, he said.

He said he expects the tribunal to hear arguments by either side on the issue. "It will probably take time for the Senate to decide on this."

Estrada lawyer says evidence is weak

Former House Deputy Speaker Raul Daza, who is one of Mr. Estrada’s lawyers, said evidence against the Chief Executive is weak and that the articles of impeachment do not contain enough material evidence to warrant a conviction.

For instance, he said, on the impeachment article on betrayal of public trust, the opposition had cited the issuance by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office of a P1-million donation to a charitable foundation of First Lady Luisa Ejercito.

The opposition said this is an example of the President having abused his power to the advantage of his family.

But Daza said the PCSO’s decision to contribute to Mrs. Ejercito’s foundation was made without the consent or even the participation of the President.

"If the President had nothing to do with the donation, they why was this included in the impeachment complaint?" Daza asked.

He also cited another case where the Chief Executive’s son Jude was implicated in using government resources for a personal trip to Cagayan de Oro City.

Daza said this is again baseless because "to our knowledge, there was no complaint or charge filed against the President’s son."

"I don’t think the President should be faulted for defending his own son," he said.

Meanwhile, former Senate President Franklin Drilon proposed to fine-tune impeachment rules to speed up the hearings.

"We have to revise the rules because in the first place, handling an impeachment case is something new to the Senate. The rules were based on the US version, some provisions of which cannot be applied in the local setting," he said, adding the rules were hastily approved.

Sen. Loren Legarda also filed an urgent resolution that would prohibit motions to dismiss or motions aimed at unduly derailing or delaying the impeachment trial.

She said there is no express provision under the rules of impeachment which deals with these motions.

"The Senate is acting as a quasi-judicial body in this impeachment trial and should not be bound by technical rules or procedures as provided under the rules of court," she said in a statement.

Plunder charges filed vs Estrada son, allies

Two non-government organizations filed plunder charges against presidential son San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, two senators, two Cabinet men and a presidential friend in connection with the jueteng scandal.

The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and the Graft-Free Philippines Foundation Inc. claimed that these officials conspired with President Estrada in committing an impeachable offense.

In a complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, the two groups accused Senators John Osmeña and Teresita Aquino-Oreta, Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, former presidential aide Edward Serapio, chief legislative liaison officer Jose Jaime Policarpio, presidential friend Charlie "Atong" Ang, accountant Yolanda Ricaforte and Jinggoy of conspiring to get hold of the illegal gambling money and a kickback from tobacco taxes.

Diokno was impleaded because he was the one who released the P130 million tobacco taxes, the two senators for having received a generous tip from the President during a gambling session, while Ang, Ricaforte and Policarpio were implicated in the jueteng anomaly. Serapio, meanwhile, was sued for receiving the P200 million jueteng money purportedly for the Muslim Youth Foundation.

The VACC filed earlier plunder charges against Mr. Estrada, but did not explain why the President should be indicted.

The group used newspaper clippings as a basis for the complaint and attached the Sept. 25 sworn affidavit of Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis "Chavit" Singson in accusing the Chief Executive of corruption.

Among the criminal charges enumerated in their five-page complaint were plunder and violation of the Anti-Graft Law for having asked and received from Singson P130 million of Ilocos Sur’s share of tobacco taxes.

The group also accused the Chief Executive of perjury for failing to declare his real assets.

VACC said the five mansions of Mr. Estrada’s mistresses should be forfeited in favor of the government.

An administrative case was also filed by the group against the President for violating the Code of Conduct for Government Officials and Employees. They said Mr. Estrada failed to "observe a simple living."

Network war settled

The war between ABS-CBN Channel 2 and GMA Channel 7 over the coverage of the impeachment trial was settled yesterday when Sen. Sergio Osmeña III decided to allow the two stations to cover the event along with the state-owned PTV Channel 4.

Osmeña, head of a special committee that would allow the broadcast media to cover the trial, made the three television stations agree on how to cover the event.

"The agreement was that the three TV networks will put up six cameras each in the session hall," he said, adding that the networks must not use their stations’ logos during the coverage.

To ensure order during the trial, a mock-up coverage will be conducted on Monday.

Senate secretary Lutgardo Barbo said they are planning to rearrange the seats so that there would be less obstructions during the trial.

Initially, they plan to put up an elevated gallery where the senators could clearly see the witnesses.

"By their body language and eye contact with the witnesses, the senators can tell if the witnesses are telling the truth," he said. – With reports from Delon Porcalla, Edith Regalado