Manny Villar Jr. a Philippine Presidentiable Controversy Collections.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Joker Arroyo replies

Calling A Spade... -- By Solita Collas-Monsod

Joker Arroyo replies

Fair’s fair. Last week’s column asked, "Will the Real Joker Arroyo Please Stand Up?" This week is devoted to the reply of Senator Arroyo, who signs himself "Real Joker." And whose letter was dated the day after my column appeared, and delivered by hand. Let the reader know that Joker and I go back a long way -- we were neighbors when I was in elementary school and he was in the UP College of Law. Plus I have the highest respect and greatest affection for his wife Fely.

"Dear Winnie,

"Thank you for devoting your entire column of February 4th 2010 to me. As you had urged, I hasten to stand up like a reproached pupil being asked to provide answers.

"Yes, on August 17, 1998 or 11 years ago, I delivered a privilege speech against Speaker Villar. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what you quoted.

"This happened during the 11th Congress -- July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001.

"My speech was referred to the Committee on Rules chaired by Rep Mar Roxas, then the Majority Leader.

"As I recall, the Secretary of the Rules Committee approached me days after the referral and advised me something like this -- "Sir, the Committee cannot act on this. The jurisdiction of the committee (of the 11th Congress) covers acts committed by members during the life of the 11th Congress, that is, from July 1, 1998 up to Jue 30, 2001. Your charges are alleged acts of the Speaker before July (1998). By inference, the Committee Secretary was saying that I was procedurally wrong, that the committee could not take cognizance of my charges because they were acts allegedly committed before the onset of the 11th Congress.

"I assumed that Mar Roxas, then the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, did not have the heart to tell me I was out of line, hence he dispatched his committee secretary to do the job.

"I do not know how the Rules Committee disposed of my charges nor did I feel right to press it after my attention was called that I was procedurally wrong. It was for me a lesson on parliamentary rules.

"11 years later, Sen. Lacson rehashed and read my old House speech on the Senate floor to lend support to his expanded allegations against Sen. Villar involving the putative C-5 double insertion. "What he did was to resuscitate what the House had possibly archived.

"You ask why I proposed in 1998 the creation of a House Committee of the Whole to try then Speaker Villar and yet I opposed a Senate Committee of the Whole to try Senator Villar in 2009.

"Simple. Because the ground rules were different. Had the House Committee of the Whole been constituted the then existing Rules of the House Ethics Committee would have governed the proceedings.

"Not in the Senate. The Senate Committee of the Whole dispensed with the existing Rules of the Senate Ethics Committee and with unbecoming haste, formulated an entirely new set of rules tailor-made for Villar.

"This so infuriated Sen. Kiko Pangilinan -- how rules made in April 2009 could be given retroactive effect to govern the investigation of Mr. Villar for his conduct from 1995 to 2008. Please note that in that same set of new rules, there was no penalty prescribed. It was left open-ended.

"The new rules were unabashed ex-post facto, hence constitutionally prohibited.

"How about the contents of my 1998 privilege speech. The House Rules Committee wrote finis to it and I acquiesced to its inadmissibility.

"I cannot now turn around like a top and use it anew.

"We insisted that the Fourteenth Congress of either House has no power to investigate a member for alleged transgressions committed in the Thirteenth, the Twelfth, or Eleventh Congress and so on.

"But here is the rub. When this controversy started, we were only six who opposed the Senate move to proceed with the investigation. Ranged against us were Villar’s political opponents, namely Liberals -- Roxas, Noynoy, Biazon (whose son Ruffy is a senatorial candidate); Erap’s PMP President Enrile, senatorial candidate Sen. Jinggoy; unaffiliated presidential candidates Chiz, Gordon, Lacson and Jamby -- all nine of them.

"Villar was dead meat right off the bat. They had 16, the 2/3 vote required under the Constitution to suspend or expel. But when they prepared the Committee Report, the anti-Villar group admitted that they had lost the 16. The concluding paragraph reads:

"’The committee of the whole notes that..x x x x It is cognizant of the reality that although it finds that the respondent should be meted out the penalties of either suspension or expulsion from the Senate, the number of votes required for such sanctions may have been rendered unattainable.’

"And by curtain time for the grand finale in the afternoon of February 3, there were only 11 of them, not even enough for a quorum. They beat a hasty retreat by adjourning abruptly although our legislative calendar says we should adjourn on February 6th.

"I trust that with these, you will not send me to the corner to stand and face the wall.

"All the best and regards to Cris.

"Very sincerely

"Real Joker" (signed)

I appreciate the effort Joker makes to explain his side to me. And maybe that is the real Joker standing up. But it certainly doesn’t sound like the Joker I knew.

The Joker I knew wouldn’t have had an employee of the House stop him in his tracks by merely saying that Joker was procedurally wrong because his charges covered alleged acts of Villar before July 1998. The Joker I knew would have stopped the fellow short and told him to read his speech again, particularly the part where he says: "Nor has Speaker Villar up to now, I am saying up to now, divested his connections with the companies aforestated. Speaker Villar is in no hurry to divest because he has declared that he is under no obligation to do so. A continuing violation." (Emphasis supplied.)

More importantly, the Joker I knew would not allow technicalities to get in the way of the truth. He would not have just lost interest in the proceedings after a mere secretary of a committee told him he was wrong. The reader would not have failed to notice that Joker, in his letter, ignored totally the issue of whether his charges were valid or not -- and focused on whether the charges could be taken cognizance of by a committee or not. Did Joker the Filipino citizen get trumped by Joker the easily intimidated lawyer? Since when did Joker get intimidated by anybody?

And speaking about getting in the way of the truth -- Joker’s version of how the Senate Committee of the Whole adopted its rules (i.e., that "it dispensed with the existing rules of the House Ethics Committee, and with unbecoming haste formulated an entirely new set of rules tailor-made for Villar) does not jibe with Johnny Ponce Enrile’s version -- but I will look at the Senate records to find out exactly what happened, so I can report on it.

I guess the bottom line here, Joker, is, at the time you made those charges against Villar, had you done your homework and believed in their accuracy? And if you did, have you changed your mind since then? If so, why? That’s all that the public really wants to know.

Let’s make it even simpler: In your opinion, did Villar use his influence and position as a legislator to benefit financially from government contracts and loans?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers