Transcript of Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago

13 December 2006

On Smith’s custody

This creates a constitutional problem. Under our constitution, treaties or any international agreement is specifically described as part of the law of the land, as if it were a law passed by our own legislature, with respect to its effectivity in our territory.

The VFA provides that custody of accused American servicemen, until after the decision has become final and executory, presumably elevated to the Supreme Court, shall belong to the US Embassy, or at the very least, in a place that has been reached by mutual agreement of the two parties, the Philippines and the United States. These two parties have already reached the agreement on the US Embassy premises as the venue of the detention of the accused. So logically, the accused should remain in detention in the US Embassy premises pursuant to the mutual agreement between the two governments.

The trial judge is insisting on detention in another location, the Makati City Jail. That would be in effect a violation of our agreement with a foreign government. This will have to be an internal process within the Philippine government, for we have an executive branch that has already agreed to a certain place, and we have a judicial branch insisting on its jurisdiction over another place. There is therefore a conflict between two branches of government. If the executive branch wishes to bring this to its logical conclusion in law, the matter would have to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

It does not seem to be reasonable for a trial judge to assert jurisdiction in such a manner that might compromise our relationship with a foreign government, particularly since there is no indication that the state of detention previously agreed upon by the two governments might prejudice Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over this case. There is no indication, for example, if the accused, when turned over to his place of detention in the US Embassy, the embassy will spirit him away or keep him incommunicado, or even take him away from Philippine territory. If there are no such indications, I think that the US government is entitled to a presumption of good faith from our government.

The decision of the trial judge may have become final, but it is not executory in the sense that it is still open to appeal either to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. In that sense, the conditions specified in the treaty has not yet taken place. Therefore, the accused should remain detained within US Embassy premises, as previously agreed upon.

The provision of the VFA is very clear. Whether I like the provision or not, since it is already part of the agreement that has been properly and duly entered into by the two governments, then we are bound by it under international law.

On the Con-Con

Kung meron panukalang resolusyon ang parehong kamara ng Konggreso na ibibigay ang kapangyarihan sa Presidente, pwede siyang mag-appoint ng delegates. But the thing here is, kung mag-eleksyon tayo para sa mga delegado sa Constitutional Convention, isabay man natin sa eleksyon sa 2007 o hindi, gagastos pa rin ang bayan. Gagastos sa pangangampanya ang mga delegado, bibigyan pa natin sila ng sweldo, at magbabayad pa tayo ng renta para sa gusali kung saan sila magtitipun-tipon. All of these will eventually reach billions of pesos. Pareho pa rin ang kalalabasan. Ang iniiwasan sana natin ay hahawakan ng mga pulitiko sa House of Representatives ang pagsulat ng bagong Saligang Batas. Kung maghahalalan para sa mga delegado, asawa at mga anak pa rin nila ang tatakbo, kaya ganun pa rin ang kalalabasan. Kaya hindi ako bilib sa Con-Con na yan. Mas mabuti pa ang Constituent Assembly basta mag-usap muna ang Senate President at ang Speaker of the House of Representatives para magkasundo kung ano ba talaga ang mga basic principles na kailangang palitan bago tayo gumawa ng mga formal na resolution sa plenary session.

May problema rin kung ang Pangulo ang mag-a-appoint ng mga delegado sa Con-Con. Sino ang magbibigay ng payo sa Pangulo kung sino ang magaling, at alin ang mga sector na dapat may representante sa Constitutional Convention? If we give the sole power to appoint to the President, it will also inevitably become a political process because she will be under severe pressure by her colleagues in the administration party to appoint those who are friendly to certain politicians.

Basta dapat i-disqualify na lang yung mga kamag-anak ng mga senador at congressmen para iba naman.

Charter change is not a dead issue. It is in its last gasps. It still has chances of staying alive but a miracle worker has to come and apply mouth-to-mouth resuscitation because people are fed up with it.

-o0o-

Press Statement

7 December 2006

WHY I SUPPORT CHIEF JUSTICE PUNO

Early Wednesday evening, Pres. Arroyo visited me at my house in La Vista, Quezon City. She read me the riot act, and I calmed down.

After the president filled me in, I agreed that Justice Reynato Puno (Rey) deserves to be appointed Chief Justice. It appears that Rey was not a party to the plot to keep me out of the Supreme Court. On the contrary, it appears that Rey himself has been a victim of infernal scheming within the Court.

Pres. Arroyo also told me that she would refrain from reappointing any regular member of the Judicial and Bar Council. One of them is Raoul Victorino, who is anyway disqualified because while he is supposed to represent the private sector, he is actually a retired Sandiganbayan justice. This duplicitous spectacle is like a wolf parading in sheep’s clothing.

Listen, children, and I shall tell you a bloodcurdling bedtime story of political intrigue.

The plot against me was ostensibly led by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban (Art). But he and Victorino were apparently merely carrying out the orders of the person jerking their puppet strings, their acknowledged lord and master, former Sen. Jovito Salonga (Jovy). Last year, Jovy prevailed on Pres. Arroyo to appoint Art as Chief Justice, thus jumping over Rey who, at that time, was already senior associate justice.

Jovy was apparently emboldened by his newfound power to muscle in on the presidency, which has always been his foremost heart’s desire. He demanded that Pres. Arroyo should give him the head of Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos. For lack of constitutional power, Pres. Arroyo was unable to accommodate Jovy’s imperious demand. Hence, he turned against her, and any person he perceives is close to her.

After media reported that I had been nominated for Chief Justice, Jovy immediately issued the negative comment that I should not be in the Supreme Court, because allegedly I am not a team player. In his dotage, Jovy seems to have mistaken judicial work for the sport of basketball.

Debonaire Art reportedly hates reclusive Rey with a passion. Rey, like me, is a U.P. law graduate and a former Collegian editor – a position of national renown. Art, by contrast, is not a U.P. law graduate, and earned renown as owner of a travel agency. He also earned notoriety for a lengthy dalliance with a former beauty queen. But in his effusive resume, he likes to project himself as a family man. Perhaps mental honesty is not a requirement for Chief Justice.

Before he retired last December 6, Art was reportedly tireless in urging Pres. Arroyo not to appoint Rey. Among Art’s protégées for the post were Justices Antonio Carpio and Leonardo Quisumbing (Leo). A former Collegian editor, Leo of late has been occupied with issuing press releases pressing for observance of the newly-minted “insider rule.” It would have benefited him, since he stood second in line to Rey, who at that time was destined by his enemies to be bumped off again.

Then there was even a banner headline story that the Court would collectively insist on an alleged “insider rule,” thus preparing the public mind for my repudiation. That deliberate leak to the press was part of a sinister plot to out me. To carry out the plot, Art even called up a Malacañang associate to pledge insincerely that he would support my nomination, thus deliberately misleading Malacañang. To quote Shakespeare: “Zounds! What a merry web they weave!” In Tagalog, walang hiya, ah!

I have it in good authority that after my fulmination against Art in the Senate, the majority of Supreme Court justices were not angry, but instead elated. They have never liked him, because last year he grabbed the Chief Justice post from Rey, without any qualification, except the good fortune to be protected by a powerful padrino. Some justices have sent word that if I wish, they will send me Court documents against Art.

So my blood is boiling against Art Panganiban and Jovy Salonga. I have long lost any respect for Jovy, because he is malicious. At the necrological service held at the Senate for his contemporary, former Sen. Arturo Tolentino, Jovy delivered a funeral oration, but created a scandal. He recounted the political past, praised himself as a principled statesman, and denounced Mr. Tolentino for having allegedly betrayed those principles. All these, while the erstwhile eloquent Mr. Tolentino was lying horizontally in a coffin, unable to defend himself. What kind of man finds it impossible to say the good about the dead?

Jovy and Art tried their best to fix a funeral for Rey and me, and in the process they also tried to dupe us into fighting each other.

I congratulate Chief Justice Rey Puno, and wish him good luck. Let justice prevail, and let the plotters fall!

-o0o-

Press Statement

7 December 2006

WHY I DID NOT SIGN THE RESOLUTION

I agree with the Resolution that a constituent assembly should be bicameral. Under the doctrine of necessary implication, since Congress is bicameral, the term “Congress” means the two chambers. Further, the Supreme Court has already ruled in a decided case that the House of Representatives, acting alone, is not Congress.

However, I regret that I disagree with the Resolution, when it claims that three-fourths vote of the Senate, voting separately, is necessary. My position is, that a substantial number of senators is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement for Senate participation in a joint session, with joint voting. I base my opinion on the fact that in several provisions, the Constitution takes care to specify when Congress should vote separately.

Since the Constitution does not specify separate voting for a constituent assembly, the reasonable conclusion can be drawn that voting does not have to be separate. To insist on separate voting, despite constitutional silence, would be engaging in speculative exegesis, which is not allowed in constitutional law.

Further, to insist on separate voting, without explicit constitutional basis, would be to vest in the Senate the power to veto the will of the sovereign people, as expressed through their representatives. It is true that the Senate also represents the sovereign will. However, since a senator has a national constituency, while a representative has a district constituency, it can be argued that a representative has a more direct grasp of public sentiment. For if a representative acts contrary to the wishes of his district constituents, he risks being voted out of office after three years.

I am told that the Resolution has been signed by over a majority of the Senate. This seems to indicate that a reasonable number of senators cannot be mustered to participate in the constituent assembly, sufficient to fulfill the constitutional requirement of Senate participation. If so, I venture the opinion that if the House decides to revise the Constitution unilaterally, the Supreme Court will strike down the fruits of its labors.

If a substantial number of senators decide to participate in the constituent assembly, I shall accompany them. However, in my mind, three or four senators would not be substantial compliance with the Constitution, and I would hence decline to participate in Consa.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

6 December 2006
From Inq7.net

SANTIAGO PRESSES FIGHT VS SUPREME COURT

By Juliet Labog-Javellana
Published on page A2 of the December 6, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

PURSUING her fight against the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which had dropped her from its list of candidates for Supreme Court Chief Justice, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago yesterday urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo not to appoint a permanent replacement for Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban but a temporary one when the latter retires tomorrow.

In a letter to the President, which she read into the Senate record, Santiago said Ms Arroyo should appoint an acting Chief Justice because the judiciary’s nomination process was a failure and was tainted with corruption.

Santiago was to take her battle to Malacañang last night, where she was to meet with the President.

Santiago also advised Ms Arroyo not to appoint Associate Justice Reynato Puno Chief Justice, despite the latter being the most senior of the four candidates for the position.

“If you were to appoint Mr. Puno, the public will suspect -- with good reason -- that he had unlawfully promised to decide in favor of the administration the controversial imminent case on the constitutionality of a constituent assembly (Con-ass). Thus, the Supreme Court and the constituent assembly would both lose all credibility,” Santiago said.

The woman senator was referring to the battle for Con-ass in Congress that the Arroyo administration was still fighting for in order to amend the Constitution despite having lost the case in the Panganiban Supreme Court.

Santiago instead suggested that an incumbent justice who was not on the short list of nominees be appointed acting Chief Justice until a “valid nomination process” could be undertaken. She said she would withdraw her own nomination if there were such another screening.

“I will ask the President when I see her [tonight] to appoint an acting Chief Justice. I’m going to tell her the JBC has lost all logic, all reason (for its existence),” Santiago told reporters.

On Monday, a seething Santiago had made mincemeat of Panganiban and the JBC in a cardiac-inducing privilege speech after the JBC had dropped her and Justice Antonio Carpio from the short list of nominees for Chief Justice.

A furious Santiago tagged Panganiban as the mastermind of a “thinly-veiled” plot to drop her from contention because she was a Supreme Court outsider. She said she was also excluded because ex-Senate President Jovito Salonga, Panganiban’s former boss, was Ms Arroyo’s nemesis.

In her letter to the President, Santiago told Ms Arroyo the nomination process was attended by irregularities and should be repeated.

She narrated how Panganiban had forced her to waive her public interview by the JBC after the five incumbent justices who were also candidates refused to submit to the process.

“I did not spontaneously waive my right … I was compelled to do so,” she said, adding that after she did not go through with the interview, the eight JBC members went to see her in the holding room to thank her for her “cooperation.”

Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan and Senator Edgardo Angara, however, expressed reservations about Santiago’s proposal to appoint an acting Chief Justice.

Pangilinan, ex-officio member of the JBC, said having an acting Chief Justice would place him or her in a situation where pressure could be applied on them by Malacañang if they wanted to keep their jobs.

Angara said there was no precedent for an acting Chief Justice and this should be avoided for the sake of stability in the judiciary.

For its part, Supreme Court spokesperson Ismael Khan Jr. said the high tribunal was unfazed by Santiago’s tirade because the court was more credible than the senator.

Khan said the court would rather leave it to the public to decide on Santiago’s accusations.

“Well, it will depend on how the public will react to that,” he said.

Admitting Santiago’s remarks were “uncalled for,” including describing members of the tribunal as “idiots,” Khan said the Supreme Court was not bound to react on them because they were uttered during a privilege speech delivered in the Senate.

“Whether the court feels maligned or not, it will depend on how the people will take it,” he said. With Armand N. Nocum

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

5 December 2006
From Inq7.net

SANTIAGO SLAMS JBC, SC AFTER BEING DROPPED FROM SHORTLIST

By Juliet Labog-Javellana
Posted date: December 04, 2006

SENATOR Miriam Defensor-Santiago is well-known as someone who does not mince words but on Monday she hit a new low.

After learning that she had been removed from the shortlist of candidates for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, she lost no time lambasting the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which had removed her name from contention, called the present high court members idiots and corrupt, and said she was spitting in the face of retiring Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his mentor, former senator Jovito Salonga, for conspiring against her.

In a bright yellow dress, Santiago blew into the Senate like Supertyphoon “Reming” on Monday, and delivered a scathing privilege speech attacking the JBC and the Supreme Court.

“I’m not angry, Mr. President, I am not angry,” she began, addressing Senate President Manuel Villar.

“I am irate. I am foaming at the mouth. I’m homicidal. I’m suicidal. I’m humiliated, debased, degraded. And not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit in the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court.”

Only minutes earlier, Santiago, unaware the JBC had decided to drop her nomination, learned of it when the Inquirer contacted her while she was in her car on the way to the Senate.

“Is that so?” she said.

“I will say that I resent it very deeply. I take it very personally and I will see to it that while I remain in public office that every member of the JBC shall eventually be held to account for their partisanship. For this reason, I will participate in the Con-ass (constituent assembly) for the main purpose of abolishing the JBC for corruption,” she told the Inquirer.

She also made a manifestation on the floor that the Supreme Court’s budget be reduced to its 2005 level.

Santiago said Panganiban was the “mastermind of this thinly veiled plot” to exclude her from the nomination process because she was an “intimate political ally of the President.”

She challenged the SC, which she charged had manipulated the JBC, to point to any provision in the Constitution that said an outsider could not be appointed Chief Justice.

“Wala naman sa loob ng ating saligang batas, saan nila kinuha ang kapal ng mukha nila na magsabi na ang mga sarili lang nila ang maaring Chief Justice ng korte suprema (Where in the law of the land did they get their thick-skinned idea that only Supreme Court justices could be Chief Justice)?” she said.

Santiago said Panganiban was against her because his former boss, Salonga, was against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and wanted her [Santiago] out of the picture for being the Chief Executive’s ally.

She said Panganiban had even ordered her to waive her public interview by the JBC to save face for the five incumbent justices who had refused to submit to the interviews.

She said Panganiban had asked Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez to tell her to tell the media that she was waiving the interview.

“This Chief Justice, this twisted mind, sent Secretary Gonzalez to me so that their colleagues in the Supreme Court would not be subjected to the scrutiny of the public,” she said.

Santiago also questioned Panganiban’s own qualifications to be Chief Justice, saying that he was also an outsider.

“Pinagmamalaki ng Chief Justice na ito na naging bar topnotcher siya. Ha, ha, ha,” Santiago said, adding that bar topnotchers in the United States were laughed at because this meant they were not doing substantial legal work since they had plenty of time to review for the bar exams.

Santiago said she simply wanted to be nominated to the high court to disabuse the public of the myth that only court insiders could become Chief Justice.

“I said categorically to the President that I could not be appointed Chief Justice because I preferred the company of my colleagues in the Senate anytime, any day, any year to the company of those idiots in the Supreme Court,” she said.

“If the Filipino people thought that I was good enough to be president of the republic in 1992 were it not for the devilish and satanic machinations of the septuagenarian (former president Fidel V. Ramos) yet the JBC turned its back on public opinion. Who of them graduated with honors from UP? Let them take the law school aptitude test and let’s see if they will pass,” she said.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

30 November 2006
From Inq7.net

SENATOR SANTIAGO WAIVES SUPREME COURT "JOB INTERVIEW"

by Armand Nocum and Juliet Labog-Javellana

ONLY Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago showed up for the public interview that nominees for the post of Supreme Court Chief Justice are supposed to undergo.

None of the five SC associate justices aspiring to succeed Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban appeared at the Judicial and Bar Council yesterday, claiming that the JBC could very well evaluate their competence through their decisions.

Having learned that the Associate Justices Reynato Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Antonio Carpio were no-shows, Santiago opted to “waive” her right to be interviewed.

Saying she was “slightly cross-eyed and dizzy” after preparing all night for her “job interview,” Santiago said she was very much surprised to find out that her five rivals were no-shows.

Very surprised

“I stepped off the elevator and the media said ‘What was your reaction to the fact that you’re the only one present?’ I was very surprised. The JBC did not tell me what its decision is going to be. I was excused, they continued their deliberations,” she said.

Panganiban, who chairs the JBC, announced yesterday that the JBC had received individual letters from the five associate justices informing the body of their decision not to participate.

“The justices’ option not to appear is their prerogative. Their nominations will be decided on their known track record and decisions,” Panganiban said.

He said he accepted their decision, stressing that the JBC has no power to compel anybody to attend the public interview.

Smartly turned out in pearls and a black striped pantsuit, Santiago rued that her brief appearance at the SC “wasn’t worth the [cost of] dry-cleaning my suit.”

Personality defect

She figured her five rivals are “extremely shy and suffer from a personality defect, in which case no manager will hire them, don’t you agree?”

“I decided that it is in the best interest of fair play not to insist that I should be interviewed as well,” Santiago told Senate reporters.

“I feel that if I insist, it might place my colleagues at an unfair disadvantage. So in the spirit of collegiality I am canceling [the public interview],” she said.

A source close to the deliberations revealed the real story of the failed public interviews, which would have been the first time such interviews were conducted for nominees for the SC top post.

According to the source, who asked not to be named, Panganiban had asked Santiago not to continue with the public interview after the five justices declined to submit to it.

“He’s trying to protect the incumbent justices and to save face for the JBC,” the source said.

If Santiago had gone ahead and been interviewed, it was feared there would have been a public clamor to disqualify the justices who did not show up.

The source said Panganiban was against Santiago “because of his mentor, [former Senate President Jovito] Salonga” and to perpetuate the “tayo-tayo system” (old-boys club) which resists any attempt at an outsider being appointed.

The source said another JBC member also belonged to Salonga’s law office.

Salonga’s revenge?

“It is Salonga’s way of fighting President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because Santiago is perceived to be pro-Arroyo,” the source said.

Quisumbing, the second most senior magistrate in the court yesterday asked the President to appoint Puno as the latter was the most senior member of the high court.

He warned that members of the judiciary might become demoralized if the seniority rule is not followed. But he noted that it was the sole prerogative of the President to appoint the Chief Justice.

Quisumbing earlier said he would not be participating in the public interview because of a standby resolution in the Supreme Court that there is no need for sitting justices automatically nominated to undergo a public interview.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

29 November 2006
From Inq7.net

JBC SUSPENDS PUBLIC INTERVIEW

by Tetch Torres

THE JUDICIAL and Bar Council (JBC) has suspended the public interview of all the nominees for Chief Justice after none of the candidates from the Supreme Court showed up.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago was the only candidate who arrived for the interview Wednesday, but she also decided to forgo the process.

Senator Francis Pangilinan, a member of the JBC, said following the cancellation of the interview that the panel is faced with three possibilities -- to either declare a failure of the nomination process; urge the justices to reconsider their position and reschedule the public interview; or disqualify the justices and open the nomination process.

Pangilinan said the JBC would discuss the matter in its next meeting Monday.

At the same time, Pangilinan said he was “disappointed” over the non-appearance of the high court justices, namely Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno; and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing.

"I am disappointed. I do highly regard the magistrates. They may have reasons for not appearing but we don't agree with [these]," Pangilinan said.

Senator Santiago, the only nominee who appeared for the interview said she was “surprised by this development.”

“When I first received my invitation for a job interview, I responded affirmatively with alacrity out of an abiding sense of obedience and allegiance not only to the Supreme Court, to the JBC, but to the rule of law in our country,” Santiago said.

“As a former professor of Constitutional Law, I invoke the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” she said.

“Considering that my friendly rivals have decided to waive their privilege of a job interview that if I insist to be interviewed this afternoon, it might put my colleagues and competitors at an unfair disadvantage. If that is the case, then I am also willing to forgo the privilege out of a spirit of collegiality and fairness,” she said.

Meanwhile, civil society groups are apprehensive that the non-appearance of the candidates might create a bad precedent, giving other judges from other courts a reason to snub the JBC.

"The justices, say from the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan nominated for a presiding justice post might imitate them. These are also sitting justices, does it mean they are also exempted from being interviewed?" Alternative Law Group (ALG) Spokesman Marlon Manuel said.

ALG is part of a group of civil society organizations called the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW).

Manuel added that the non-appearance was also a big blow to outgoing Chief Justice and JBC Chairman Artemio Panganiban's efforts at enhancing the transparency of the appointments process and promoting judicial reform.

"We are very saddened that the justices themselves made the people feel that the rule of law did not apply to them," Manuel said.

“In a country adhering to the rule of law principle, every member of society, even the ruler, must follow the law,” said Manuel.

"Their non-appearance has clearly sent a message to the public: Some could stand above the law and are not answerable to the law. Isn’t it that when people could not follow the law, they are either punished or disqualified? We hope that the JBC could address this matter once and for all otherwise it won't anymore be effective in its mandate," he said.

-o0o-