BY PETER TABINGO

JOSE Miguel "Mike" Arroyo yesterday asked the Office of the Ombudsman to junk criminal complaints against him, saying allegations that he is involved in anomalies in the $329 million ZTE broadband project were fabricated.

In his first-ever appearance in the Ombudsman probe on the ZTE deal, the First Gentleman claimed ignorance of the details of the contract and denied allegations he offered a bribe and that he told ZTE whistleblower Jose "Joey" de Venecia III to "back off" from the project.

"I do not meddle in governmental affairs. I do not know all the antecedent, contemporaneous and subsequent events surrounding the NBN project. I cannot be indicted for bribery simply because I am not a public officer. I can neither be indicted for corruption because there is not even an allegation, much less proof, that I ever offered any public officer any gift by reason of his or her office," Arroyo said in his 20-page counter-affidavit submitted through lawyer Ruy Alberto S. Rondain.

He said De Venecia’s version of the incident "never happened."

"I never pointed a finger at De Venecia, and never told him to ‘back off!’ I would not have. First, that may have been the first time I met him. I am not so uncouth as to pick a fight with someone I had just met. Second, the term ‘back off!’ is not in my vocabulary (as) I am not accustomed to American colloquialisms," he said.

While admitting he was introduced to De Venecia at the Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club in Mandaluyong City "in early 2007," Arroyo said that was the first time they met.

Arroyo said what he remembers was that he cautioned De Venecia that he might be violating the Anti-Graft Law in pursuing a government project owing to the position of his father then as House speaker.

"(Transportation) Secretary Mendoza said that De Venecia was the son of the Speaker of the House, and that he was somehow involved in the NBN project. This struck me as a lawyer because I intuitively knew that that was in some way or another prohibited under the anti-graft laws. I then casually said that De Venecia might have a conflict since I did not think the Speaker’s son could be involved in any government contract. De Venecia did not respond to my comment, and I did not pursue the matter," Arroyo said.

Arroyo was the only one among the respondents in the nine complaints who attended the public hearing.

ABALOS A NO-SHOW

Former Elections chair Benjamin Abalos Jr., a respondent in seven of the complaints, failed to show up and failed to submit his counter-affidavit despite the lapse of the deadline last February 29.

Despite objections from the complainants, the special investigation panel gave Abalos a non-extendible period of five days to answer the charges.

Ibarra Gutierrez III, counsel for Rep. Ana Teresa Hontiveros-Baraquel (Akbayan), one of the complainants, pointed out that Abalos did not cite any basis for seeking an extension and that the committee set aside its own rules by allowing an extension.

UP law professor Harry Roque said the panel should have declared Abalos as having waived his right to file his counter-affidavit.

Roque is counsel for the group of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona who is a complainant against Abalos and Arroyo.

Deputy special prosecutor Robert Kallos, a panel member, clarified the extension was granted to Abalos solely "for the purpose of serving the highest interest of justice."

NOT ABOVE THE LAW

Roque moved that President Arroyo be compelled to attend the public hearing to explain or deny her involvement in the ZTE-NBN deal.

"In the case of Estrada vs. Desierto, the Supreme Court declared that there was no absolute immunity for the President. The commission of a crime is not covered by such immunity because it is not an official act. GMA is not immune from investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. She should be made to explain. She may be president but she is not above the law," Roque said.

Roque said he was surprised when he was required by the panel to submit his motion in writing.

"They are delaying matters. This proceeding is a litmus test for the public to see if there is still hope that the Ombudsman can be impartial. The people are waiting to see if anything good can come out of these hearings," he said.

MOTION DENIED

At yesterday’s second preliminary investigation, the panel again denied a motion raised by lawyer Ernesto Francisco, another complainant, that proceedings be suspended until after the termination of a parallel Senate probe.

Francisco said he intends to file a motion for reconsideration.

Kallos explained that the Senate inquiry is in aid of legislation while the hearing of the Ombudsman panel is to determine if there has been a criminal offense committed relative to the ZTE deal and if anyone can be held liable for it.