spot_img
27.7 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

House drops Romero’s immunity from arrest

- Advertisement -

THE House of Representatives will not provide parliamentary immunity to embattled 1-Pacman Rep. Michael Romero after a Manila court issued an arrest warrant against the billionaire.

House Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Fariñas said the House leadership could not guarantee parliamentary immunity from arrest and would respect and abide by the orders of the court.

At the same time, however, Fariñas said Romero would not be facing expulsion or suspension proceedings because no ethics complaint will be filed against him as the alleged offenses were purportedly committed before he was elected as congressman.

1-Pacman Rep. Michael Romero

“The House of Representatives will protect the rights of its members as well as those of any person, but will respect and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities,” Fariñas said.

Fariñas was reacting to the arrest warrant issued by Manila RTC Branch 11 Judge Cicero Jurado Jr., who recommended no bail for Romero and his two co-accused, Edwin Jeremillo and Felicia Aquino, for qualified theft. 

- Advertisement -

Romero allegedly stole P3.4 million from his family’s Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc.

In issuing the statement, Fariñas said parliamentary immunity of members of Congress is clearly defined under the Constitution.

He said Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution provides that, “A senator or member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.”

“The immunity from arrest applies only while the Congress is in session ‘in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment.’ Since [the order] stated that no bail has been recommended, it is obviously for an offense not covered by the immunity,” Fariñas said.

Congress resumes its sessions on Monday, Jan, 16, after a month-long Christmas and New Year break.

On Jan. 5, a Quezon City Regional Trial Court also issued a ruling barring Romero from claiming ownership of his family-owned Harbor Centre Port Terminal Inc.

It was a major setback for Romero in his protracted legal battle with his father, construction magnate Reghis Romero II, who sued his estranged son for allegedly falsifying ownership of the port facility.

In a 12-page order, Branch 222 Presiding Judge Edgar Santos ordered Romero and his affiliates, as well as their agents, employees and successors-in-interest to stop acting on behalf of HCPTI as shareholder or member of the board of directors of the Manila North Harbor Port Inc.

The order exposes some possible challenges in the ownership of Manila North Harbor Port Inc., which has been taken over by conglomerate San Miguel Corp.

Before the transaction, MNHPI was 65 percent owned by HCPTI and 35 percent by San Miguel-owned Petron Corp. SMC eventually acquired an additional 43.44-percent stake.

Fariñas said the House could not make the court ruling as basis for an ethics case against Romero until the ruling becomes “final and executory.”

“The court ruling is not final and cannot be the subject of an ethics case since every person enjoys the presumption of innocence until otherwise proven guilty by final judgment,” Fariñas said.

He also said the House has no jurisdiction over acts committed by a member before becoming a member of the present Congress.

Fariñas said the House could not look into the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to allow the sale transaction to proceed between Romero and Ramon Ang-owned San Miguel Corp. and Petron unless a member filed a bill or a resolution calling for a probe.

The House, he said, can only act on bills or resolutions duly filed.

SMC president and chief operating officer Ramon Ang said the group now controls a 78.33-percent interest in the contested port terminal firm.

Santos, in his Jan. 5 order, also prohibited Romero and other respondents in the case from exercising any rights as the board of HCPTI and from representing themselves as the duly authorized representatives, with the power to act for and on behalf of Harbour Terminal, including any sale, transfer or disposition of its assets and shares.

They were ordered to stop representing themselves as stockholders of Harbour Terminal.

The court said it was inclined to believe that the 2011 deeds of assignments, which were used by the younger Romero’s camp to represent themselves as the rightful majority shareholders of Harbour Terminal, were forged.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles