Transcript of Sen. Defensor Santiago’s Interview

30 January 2007

On the findings of the Melo Commission against Gen. Palparan

They are not strictly following the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court are a set of rules of procedure that are strictly followed in court as a way of determining who is telling the truth. So in this case, you notice that one of the aspects of the findings was given banner headline treatment and was immediately disputed by Gen. Palparan who was placed in the wrong by that finding. It is extremely difficult for an objective observer of the proceedings like myself to find out who is right. Because this commission, as I said, have their own rules of procedure and they are not as strict as those followed in a courtroom. So we have to be careful because generally the findings will be applicable to both situations. But we’ll have to make exceptions to those situations which do not conform to the regular way events turn out. So I will say that if there is any crime indicated and there is a possibility that the perpetrators can be identified, then of course the report of the commission should be referred to the NBI so that they can gather enough evidence constituting probable cause that the Ombudsman or the prosecutor can initiate charges in court. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the persons who are implicated by the findings without any element of decisiveness. That’s what’s unfair about the special commissions or special fact-finding bodies.

They are pointing on Gen. Palparan on the doctrine of command responsibility since he was in charge at that time. Any atrocity that may have been committed should, in the final analysis, be attributed to him. But that doctrine of command responsibility laid down by the Nuremberg Tribunal after the World War does not necessarily apply in a just way as to produce a just result in a case of armed conflict within the civilians of the same community. And so, to make a blanket statement that since there was only one general, that general will have to assume responsibility for anything that his man committed, whether he knew or approved or both of those incidents, is not allowed by our Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was not a war situation. It was not a battle situation. It was more, what they call in international law, a situation of armed conflict. So it was not a case of states fighting each other, in which case command responsibility is necessary so that the victor can ensure that the vanquished state will never do it again. That’s the principle of the Nuremberg Tribunal. But this is a different case. It is a domestic case of a domestic armed conflict. There should be a more thorough investigation which will take years by the NBI.

Kasi ang senado sunod din ang findings namin sa testigo na mahagilap namin cause we have no authority to conduct a criminal investigation. What we conduct is an inquiry in aid of legislation. So generally, we are even worse because normally we will end up with vague generalities about what law should be passed in the future and we cannot make specific findings on specific cases.

‘Yang Command responsibility na iyan ay hindi maganda dahil yang prinsipyo ay ginawa nung Nuremberg Tribunal pagkatapos ng World War. Ibig sabihin nun, gusto nilang parusahan ang Hapon at ang Germany na kailanman ay huwag ulitin yung mga ginawa noon lalo na ang pambobomba ng Pearl Harbor kaya sinabi nila na ang pinaka-pinunong heneral ang siyang dapat managot. Pero ito ay hindi naman giyera kundi ito ay domestic lamang, sa loob lamang ng ating bansa, hindi siya World War. It is a domestic situation of armed conflict kaya hindi mo maaring i-apply yang command responsibility na iyan dahil magiging labag iyan sa ating Rules of Criminal Procedure. So they will have to prove first that there was conspiracy between Gen. Palparan and whoever the individual soldier was or group of soldiers that apparently carried out those atrocities before you can even include him in the charge.

It is very easy to say that, “Well, let’s just identify who was in ultimate command at that time and then let’s make him assume criminal responsibility.” But that’s not going to be a fair conclusion. First you have to prove that he knew and that he approved, he gave his consent whether it was express or tacit.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview

29 January 2007

On political turncoatism

It depends on what they turn coat for, if it is just political convenience that would be a legitimate cause for concern on the part of the electorate. But if there is an undercurrect of ideology or principle then the person cannot be blamed because there are now ideological divides among our political parties. In my case for example, I always tend to side with a sitting president because of my background in law. I always insist that all legal measures must be scrupulously observed and I worry about our national economy every time there is an unseasonal change of president outside of a regular election. The economy immediately slides and the persons who ultimately foot the bill are always the poor. So, in that case, whoever is the incumbent president, regardless weather he calls himself administration or opposition. I will tend to side with the person until the expiration of the term.

On the “bidding war” between administration and opposition for Senatorial candidates

(For the parties, the question they ask to the candidates is) how much are we going to give you for your campaign funds? And How much does a candidate believe will be given to him because a promise and reality is often far apart in politics. They promise you, “run with us and we’ll give you ten million and you get one million down payment that’s all you’ll ever receive for the entire campaign.” This is actually a bidding war (of) who can promise the most money, and then it becomes a question of how far the candidate is willing to trust the word of the political advisers.

On the administration working on a “Unity Ticket”

They are working from the same pool of potential candidates, both the opposition and the administration. Politicians keep both lights open until the very last minute and the money is in the hand. Well, what the senatorials want to hear is that they will be promised 50 million independently of party expenses like travel, lodging, and other campaign expenses. That can be promised, but will that promised can be delivered upon is a question because of the experience in the past of each of these candidates.

(Who is in the capacity to give such amount?) The administration, naturally, because the campaign contributors are always inclined to give more. Any intelligent campaign contributor will give to both major sides at the very least or to both sides if there are more than two. It depends on how much it thinks is deserved, who has the better chances of winning. So that’s just politics.

I spent 50 million last time for my presidential campaign. And that was not enough because that time in 1992 people who were running for municipal mayor told me that 50 million was not enough. It has never gone beyond 50 million. That was all my campaign contributors were willing to give me. Today, for senator that is the basic minimum they hope to hear about. But they know that to get a competitive edge they have to buy more, they have to buy votes for sale. They no longer buy votes individually or by barangay or stealing the ballot box. You buy a syndicate within the COMELEC so that all they do is change the numbers in the provincial certificates. So you buy wholesale now; if you don’t buy wholesale you don’t win a senator. That was my experience in the last senatorial elections. I was always at least number two at the polls. In the final analysis, after election day, I was only number seven because I refused to deal with the syndicates and I didn’t have the money. So everyone else bought their own. They have connections in the COMELEC. They have access to provincial certificates that have to be sent to Manila. That’s why 50 million is not enough for a senator of he is not really very popular. So, I tell you the number one senator is said to have spent 700 to 800 million.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

24 January 2007

On the JPEPA hearings:

There is no point conducting any activity in the legislative process, unless there is a reasonable chance that within 9 days the process can be completed. Under the rules, when the new Congress comes in, it replaces entirely the old Congress, and no matter what the stage of the proceedings, a bill that is pending has to go through the entire process beginning from step one, which is we have to refile bill. In the case of the JPEPA, I might be accused of railroading the bill if I try to have voting on it—that is, to collapse the whole process—in just nine days, in competition with the other priority items in the agenda of the Senate. That is why we have mutually agreed with the Majority Leader that we shall have no JPEPA activity and leave it to the next Congress. Presumably I will still be Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. If that will be the case, the JPEPA will be the highest priority when we resume sessions in July.

On Gov. Chavit Singson’s visit to the Senate following Senator Jinggoy Estrada’s privilege speech last Tuesday:

I understand that it came as a reaction to the privilege speech directed against him. I do not want to see that kind of precedent because that would mean that there might be a chilling effect on senators who don’t have the physical courage to face people who are directly affected. Those senators, who deliver privilege speeches mentioning certain people in a negative sense, must take responsibility for their actions. But the provision of the Constitution is that they must be held to account before their own peers, not before the persons they are attacking. Hence, that would be a diminution of the concept of parliamentary immunity. People like that are allowed to come and debate a senator in his own office. They have to have respect, not necessarily to the senator, but to the Senate as an institution. So I am afraid that I do not approve of the visit because it could have led to more adverse consequences: they could have come to blows, etc. The only remedy there is to allege in court that the remarks were outside in the discharge of official functions. His actions might be misinterpreted as abuse of the powers of an incumbent administration. Whether administration or opposition, if the leaders are subjected to accusations or even attacks by senators, then simply they have to respect the constitutional provision on the parliamentary immunity of a senator.

On the Iloilo raid:

I thought that it is a disproportionate use of force to carry out what may have been a lawful intent. But the means does not justify the ends. They could just have used, for example, tear gas, or they could have turned off the electricity and water. They could not have resorted to that degree of violence.

-o0o-

Press Release

17 January 2007

MIRIAM HAILS PASSAGE OF HER BIOFUELS BILL INTO LAW

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate energy committee, today hailed the passage into law of the Biofuels Act of 2007.

The senator was the author and principal sponsor of the measure in the Senate.

Speaking during the ceremonial signing of the measure in Malacañang today, Santiago said that the Biofuels Act is expected to reduce the country’s overdependence on imported oil.

According to her, since 1994, the Philippines has imported an annual average of 120 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products. In 2004 alone, the country imported 126 million barrels of foreign oil valued at $5 billion or Php280 billion.

Santiago said that the Biofuels Act aims to improve the country’s energy efficiency while bolstering independence from imported fossil fuel.

She said that within two years from the effectivity of the new law, a minimum of 5% ethanol fuel by volume shall be blended into all gasoline fuel distributed and sold in the country. Within four years, the Philippine Biofuel Board (PBB) shall determine the feasibility of mandating a total of 10% blend of bioethanol by volume.

Santiago also said that immediately upon the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations of the Biofuels Act, a minimum of 1% biodiesel by volume shall be blended into all diesel engine fuels sold in the country.

The senator also said that the use of biofuels will be good for the environment as it will mitigate toxic and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
The passage of this important law comes in the wake of the signing by Asian leaders of the Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security during the ASEAN Summit. Among the goials stressed in the Declaration are the reduction of the region’s dependence on fossil fuels and the promotion of the use of alternative energy sources. The Declaration was endorsed by leaders from Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, China, and South Korea.

Santiago also stressed the economic benefits to be reaped from the new law. She said that an important consequence of the passage of the Biofuels Act is the improvement in the lives of farmers as more crops—corn, sugar, or straw—are needed to generate biofuels. This will generate more jobs, raise farmers’ incomes, and reinvigorate the countryside.

-o0o-

Press Release

17 January 2007

MIRIAM HAILS PASSAGE OF HER BIOFUELS INTO LAW

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate energy committee, today hailed the passage into law of the Biofuels Act of 2007.

The senator was the author and principal sponsor of the measure in the Senate.

Speaking during the ceremonial signing of the measure in Malacañang today, Santiago said that the Biofuels Act is expected to reduce the country’s overdependence on imported oil.

According to her, since 1994, the Philippines has imported an annual average of 120 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products. In 2004 alone, the country imported 126 million barrels of foreign oil valued at $5 billion or Php280 billion.

Santiago said that the Biofuels Act aims to improve the country’s energy efficiency while bolstering independence from imported fossil fuel.

She said that within two years from the effectivity of the new law, a minimum of 5% ethanol fuel by volume shall be blended into all gasoline fuel distributed and sold in the country. Within four years, the Philippine Biofuel Board (PBB) shall determine the feasibility of mandating a total of 10% blend of bioethanol by volume.

Santiago also said that immediately upon the effectivity of the implementing rules and regulations of the Biofuels Act, a minimum of 1% biodiesel by volume shall be blended into all diesel engine fuels sold in the country.

The senator also said that the use of biofuels will be good for the environment as it will mitigate toxic and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

The passage of this important law comes in the wake of the signing by Asian leaders of the Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security during the ASEAN Summit. Among the goials stressed in the Declaration are the reduction of the region’s dependence on fossil fuels and the promotion of the use of alternative energy sources. The Declaration was endorsed by leaders from Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, China, and South Korea.

Santiago also stressed the economic benefits to be reaped from the new law. She said that an important consequence of the passage of the Biofuels Act is the improvement in the lives of farmers as more crops—corn, sugar, or straw—are needed to generate biofuels. This will generate more jobs, raise farmers’ incomes, and reinvigorate the countryside.

-o0o-