One-fifths of Senate bills filed by Miriam

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed the most number of bills in the Senate with 704 and co-authored 25 others. 

The senator’s bills almost comprise one-fifths of the 3,868 bills filed by all senators for the Fourteenth Congress. She also topped the list for most number of resolutions filed with 277. 

Santiago, despite her chronic fatigue syndrome, consistently led her fellow senators in submitting the most number of legislative measures since her election in 2004. Her medical condition prompted the senator to file for an indefinite sick leave last year and early this year. 

Notable among her bills is the Anti-Billboard Bill passed by the Senate but ignored by the House of Representatives in the last congress, reportedly because of the influence of a moneyed billboard lobby. 

The measure, which places a strict ban on the billboards that fail to comply with certain size and location requirements, recently passed the committee level as Committee Report No. 85 and is now waiting to be sponsored on the Senate floor. 

Santiago’s Anti-Video Voyeurism Bill passed second reading before the Senate’s sine die adjournment in the wake of the recent Senate investigation on the proliferation of the sex videos involving Dr. Hayden Kho and various women. The bill aims to protect the privacy and dignity of every person by criminalizing photo and video voyeurism. 

Senate Bill No. 1757, or the Clear Sidewalks Act of 2009, sponsored by Santiago and co-authored with Sen. Benigno Aquino III, passed third reading before the adjournment. 

The bill prohibits the use of streets, sidewalks, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks, and other public places for commercial or personal use, and requires citizens to apply for the temporary use of sidewalks for special community-wide occasions and other civic or charitable purpose.

An Act Regulating the Use of Sidewalks for Commercial Purposes

"Clear Sidewalks Act of 2009."

By Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago

(Sponsorship Speech on 27 May 2009)

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:

“A good city is one with great sidewalks.” This is how Mr. Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota, Colombia, differentiates an advanced city from a backward one. Mr. Peñalosa was credited for turning a deteriorated downtown avenue into a dynamic pedestrian public space. He is now the senior international advisor to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy of New York. He adds that “In a good city, you must be able to walk to buy milk or bread. If you have to get into a car to buy milk or bread it means the city is not well-designed.”

In our country, sidewalks are occupied by vendors and used as illegal transport terminals. Sidewalks are also blocked by illegal structures such as basketball courts, extensions of business establishments, and of all things, barangay halls. Hence, pedestrians resort to walking on the road. This results to traffic congestions, and worse, accidents.

The Supreme Court has declared in several cases including the 1992 case of Dacanay v. Mayor Asistio Jr. (208 SCRA 404), that:

A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man. The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through contract. The interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the city officials are under legal obligation to protect.

Main Features of the Bill

The objective of S.B. No. 1757 or the “Clear Sidewalks Act of 2009”, is to ensure that sidewalks are free from unauthorized commercial or personal use to facilitate the smooth passage of persons and to clear obstructions to vehicular flow.

It defines prohibited acts and sets 2 exceptions along with the procedure for applying for these exceptions. It sets a penalty of either a fine of P1,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days or both for a violation of its provisions.

Obligations Under the Bill

A. On the part of the government

The municipal or city government is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this bill. They shall formulate implementing rules and regulations within 30 days from the approval of this bill. Today, it is known that in some local governments, especially in the urban areas, the use of sidewalks for commercial purposes has the inherent blessings of municipal/city or barangay officials. Some collect vendors’ fees, others designate the sidewalk areas as leasable areas for parking and selling of merchandise. The fees are either shared by the municipal or city government or it entirely goes to the barangay where the sidewalk areas are located.

The effectiveness of implementation would therefore hinge on the local governments’ political will and the consequent sanctions they stand to receive for their failure to implement the law.

B. On the part of the citizens

The bill prohibits the use of streets, sidewalks, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places for commercial or personal use. The bill requires citizens to apply for the temporary use of sidewalks for either community wide special occasions or sales promotion days or civic or charitable purposes.

Benefits of the Bill to the Country

Walkable streets and pedestrian cities is the core concept of livable communities. By clearing our sidewalks, we not only reduce traffic congestion and accidents, we also save ourselves from inflating transportation costs since walking is still the cheapest form of going from one point to another. People can also enjoy healthier lives as they get a regular dose of exercise.

For these reasons, I humbly recommend that this Senate should approve Senate Bill No. 1757.

MIRIAM CONDEMNS NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR TESTING

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations, joined world leaders in condemning the nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea earlier today, 25 May 2009.

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency earlier reported that North Korea “successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of the measures to bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense in every way as requested by its scientists and technicians.”

The nuclear test was reportedly “safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control.”

Santiago said the nuclear testing was a breach of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1718, which prohibited North Korea from conducting nuclear tests.

The senator urged Malacañang to support Japan’s call for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in the wake of the nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea.

Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific stock markets dipped today, spooked by the nuclear testing.

South Korean and Japanese stocks dropped after North Korea said it had conducted a nuclear test. New Zealand shares fell in sympathy with the Asian markets.

Santiago said the government should calm the Philippine stock market to prevent it from being jittery just like other Asian markets.

“There is no cause for panic. North Korea cannot immediately produce a nuclear weapon at this early stage of the testing,” Santiago said. “It will take years before North Korea can weaponize its nuclear capability.”

MIRIAM: PROSECUTE HAYDEN KHO FOR ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE’

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago today said that Dr. Hayden Kho can be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC), for committing “psychological violence” against actress Katrina Halili. 

Halili accused Kho of videotaping their sexual encounters without her knowledge and consent. The videos have since surfaced in the internet and copies in DVD format are being peddled in the streets. 

Under the VAWC, “psychological violence” refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause the mental or emotional suffering of the victim, such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and mental infidelity. 

Santiago said that under the law, a person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with a woman is guilty of committing psychological violence against her through acts causing her mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. 

According to Santiago, if Kho is found guilty by a trial court of committing psychological violence against Halili, he faces from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment, and a fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P300,000. He must also undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment under the watchful eye of the trial court. 

Santiago said Kho cannot escape criminal liability by claiming the defense of insanity. According to media reports, Kho allegedly attempted suicide in the past. 

“The Supreme Court has already ruled in countless cases that insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act,” Santiago explained.  

“For the defense of insanity to be persuasive to the court, the accused must be completely deprived of reason or acts without the least discernment, because of a complete absence of the power to discern or total deprivation of the freedom of the will,” she explained. 

The sex video that leaked in the internet clearly shows that Kho set up the camera, carefully angled it, and positioned Halili so that their act would be caught on tape.  

“The whole episode would require intelligence, care, planning, and subterfuge. That is contrary to the definition of insanity as ‘total deprivation of freedom of the will,’” Santiago said.  

“Before the alleged filming of the video, Dr. Kho was somewhat of a minor celebrity who had been frequently interviewed on national television and seen in public events. In none of his public appearances did he conduct himself in a manner that would suggest insanity,” she said. 

“The presumption of law is always in favor of sanity. The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime for the accused to be exempted from criminal liability,” Santiago said. 

The feisty senator, who is a former trial court judge, also said that even those who sell, give away, or exhibit the sex videos are liable under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. They face from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment, or a fine ranging from P6,000 to P12,000, or both imprisonment and fine. 

Even before this scandal erupted, Santiago already filed a bill to criminalize photo and video voyeurism.  

Photo and video voyeurism is the act of capturing an image of the private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly doing it under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Santiago filed Senate Bill No. 1100, or the “Anti-Video Voyeurism Act,” last 4 July 2007. Senator Francis “Chiz” G. Escudero’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights has already conducted public hearings on the bill, and has submitted to the plenary Committee Report No. 65 last 2 June 2008. The legislative measure is still waiting to be calendared in the Senate plenary session. 

Santiago, as principal author of the bill, and Escudero, as chair of the committee that conducted public hearings on the bill, are co-sponsors of the measure. 

“Under my bill, it is not even necessary that the photo or video shows the aggrieved person engaging in sexual intercourse,” Santiago explained. “As long as a private area of the victim is visible in the photo or video, whoever captured the image without the consent of the victim, or captures the image with his or her consent but broadcasts the image without his or her written permission, is liable under this act.” 

The bill defines the “private area of the individual” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast. 

“For the victim, it is obviously very embarrassing and degrading to be photographed or videotaped in a compromised situation. It is a form of invasion of personal privacy,” Santiago said.  

MIRIAM WANTS ‘BOOK BLOCKADE’ INVESTIGATED

Known booklover and author Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago today urged the Senate to investigate the alleged “book blockade” being reported in various newspapers and blogs.

Booklovers are up in arms over the book blockade, which is reportedly caused by the imposition by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) of customs duties on imported books.

According to the BOC, Republic Act No. 8047, or the Book Publishing Industry Development Act, only exempts from import taxes and duties “books or raw materials to be used in book publishing.”

The imposition of customs duties on imported books has reportedly caused book importers to reconsider future importations due to higher importation costs. Foreign books have become more expensive, and are in danger of becoming scarce or completely unavailable in local bookstores.

Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said the BOC interpretation of RA 8047 violate the 1950 Florence Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, of which the Philippines is a state party.

“The Florence Agreement provides that the contracting States undertake not to apply customs duties or other charges on, or in connection with, the importation of books, publications, and documents,” Santiago said. “The Philippines is bound by this treaty under the principle of pacta sund servanda. This simply means that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

Santiago said the government cannot use RA 8047 to evade its obligations under the treaty.

“The Philippines, as a party to the treaty, is not authorized to invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform the treaty,” she said.

“Moreover, RA 8047 itself provides that the Philippines’ national book policy is to reaffirm and ensure the country’s commitment to the UNESCO principle of free flow of information and other related provisions as embodied in the Florence Agreement and in other similar international agreements,” the senator said.

Santiago also said that the BOC’s interpretation of RA 8047 is erroneous because the exemption from import taxes and duties applies equally to books and raw materials to be used in book publishing.

“The legislative intent of RA 8047 is to adhere to the Florence Agreement and exempt books from import duties,” Santiago said. “The BOC’s interpretation has no legal basis.”

MIRIAM SEEKS PROBE OF CABINET SENATORIABLES

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago is seeking a public investigation of funds used for alleged TV infomercials by certain cabinet members planning to run for the Senate.

“If they are using public funds, they are guilty of malversation. If they are using private funds, they are guilty of premature campaigning,” she said.

Santiago mentioned the case of one cabinet member who appears in a health infomercial, another who appears in a disaster preparedness infomercial, and still another in a tax payment infomercial.

“The Election Code bans and penalizes the election offense of premature campaigning. TV informercials are a pathetic way of seeking to go around the ban,” she said.

Last year, Santiago filed a petition with the Comelec to stop reelectionist senators from appearing as alleged commercial models of certain products advertised on billboards.

Although the senator alleged that some of her colleagues are violating the ban, the Comelec dismissed her petition, prompting her to elevate it to the Supreme Court where it is pending.

“We have to stop this culture of impunity among senators, cabinet members, and other public officials blatantly violating the law. Instead, the public should support a culture of accountability by asking for their disqualification,” she said.

Santiago said that if the present trend continues, all potential candidates for local and national offices will start campaigning by one ruse or another.

“The law imposes a ban, but many are doing what the law prohibits, because of the lackadaisical attitude of the Comelec. With its refusal to comply with the law, the Comelec is in effect cultivating a culture of impunity among politicians who break the law,” she said.

ON NOGRALES THE RESOLUTION

If the House of Representatives passes the Nograles resolution by mere majority vote, then it will be unconstitutional. We are not allowed to conflate an ordinary bill with a charter change resolution. There is simply no correspondence between the two measures.

If the Nograles resolution is limited to economic provisions, then it is only an amendment, and not a revision. An amendment is limited only to specific provisions. Revision covers the entire Constitution.

But whether amendment or revision, the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of Congress. Any vote less than three-fourths is unconstitutional. For example, to pass a charter change resolution in the same way as an ordinary bill – by mere majority vote – is unconstitutional.

The reason for this is that the power of charter change is NOT part of the legislative power of Congress. Instead, the power of charter change is part of the inherent power of the people, who have spoken through the Constitution.

The power of Congress to pass laws is derived from its legislative power. By contrast, the power of Congress on charter change is derived from the Constitution. This difference was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the 1967 case of Gonzales v. Comelec.

The Constitution provides for charter change under Article 17 entitled “Amendments of Revisions.” The Constitution does not include charter change under Article 6 entitled “Legislative Department.” This is textual proof that a charter change resolution should not be treated like an ordinary bill. It would be like comparing a dilis to a whale.

The Nograles resolution, even if it follows the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. By requiring only a majority vote, it contravenes the constitutional provision that charter change should pass by a three-fourths vote.