Transcript of today’s press interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

27 September 2007

On the possible impeachment of Comelec chair Benjamin Abalos

Impeachment is not strictly a legal or judicial process. It is part judicial and part political. That (impeachment of Abalos) would depend on whether they can raise the numbers in the House of Representatives. Well, there is already a ground because under the Constitution, an impeachment proceeding can be initiated on the ground that there is betrayal of public trust and that there has been culpable violation of the Constitution.

On her statements at yesterday’s ZTE hearing
I will never denigrate the Chinese because I married one. My husband is a Yap, his mother was Chinese. I’ve always been a great admirer of Chinese civilization. I made a trip to China when I was not a public official to see their historical monuments and imbibe their culture.

We were talking about a Chinese contract. My point was if you are a public official and there’s a pending government project with you, to socialize with any of the parties of the contract is very suspicious.

Tomorrow, I will write a letter to the Chinese ambassador.

On the JPEPA

If this were a boxing match, this is already round three of the JPEPA. I already gave the first two rounds to those against the JPEPA. Today, I still give round three to those opposed to the JPEPA. They were presenting the cases of other countries in Southeast Asia which also have economic partnership agreements or EPAs with Japan. Not only that, but they also presented empirical evidence, meaning to say, the experience of these other countries which have EPAs with Japan, showing that there is serious danger that there might be importation of hazardous wastes into our country, notwithstanding our domestic laws on toxic wastes and on ecological management. What we wanted the administration to do was to refute the empirical evidence and not just talk theoretically. Theory is far removed from reality. Again, the administration was unprepared. They didn’t even have prepared statements. We were only treated to what in effect were speculations that it will not happen. What we need in our Senate hearings is actual evidence in actual histories of countries that have EPAs with Japan.

I’m afraid we only have two more hearings left. So far, those opposed to the JPEPA has already won the majority of the rounds, three out of five. I’m afraid that this agreement may not even muster a majority vote in my committee, much less a majority vote in the Senate itself. It will be my obligation as committee chair to defend this treaty. Right now, I am not receiving enough solid arguments that will enable me to persuade the Opposition who are in the majority of the Senate. If I cannot defend this treaty, it would get rejected in the Senate floor. So I would request advice from my colleagues if we even still need to file a committee report. Of course, under the Senate rules, we must file a committee report, whether for or against. But we can just not submit a report, meaning to say, the report will be negative. I’m afraid I would have to take a straw vote first among the committee members. A number of them have approached me during the course of the hearings to tell me that they are not convinced. Certainly, I will not go against the express sentiments of the committee members because I will be outvoted in the plenary session anyway. The power of the committee chair is vast, but it is also limited.

We prefer to just not submit a report. We can say that the Senate committee on foreign relations is not submitting a report although it has already concluded its hearings. That is a diplomatic way of saying that we recommend that the treaty be rejected.

In today’s hearing, even an administration official expressed doubts as to whether they should endorse the treaty at all. Senator Roxas has privately expressed skepticism over the treaty, even though he was originally a supporter of the treaty.

-o0o-

News Release

25 September 2007

MIRIAM: ANOTHER SC JUSTICE BEHIND SMEAR?

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that an alleged smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago (no relation) could be part of a plot involving another Supreme Court justice, whose previous law firm is known to be interested in a lucrative Quezon City land dispute assigned to the female justice.

“I am not related to Justice Santiago, but I’ve personally known her since our UP college days. She’s impeccably honest, and a very religious widow who keeps to herself. She’s being pressured to inhibit herself in this case,” she said.

Santiago said that she suspects another Supreme Court justice, who used to belong to a big law firm, could be part of an orchestrated media plot to bring the female justice into disgrace, and compel her to inhibit herself from writing the decision.

“As a former RTC judge, I denounce the brazen campaign to make Justice Santiago look as if she was being offered a bribe. The story violates all known rules of evidence,” the senator said.
Santiago said it was “offensively ridiculous” that the bribe money of P10 million in a box would be brought to the Supreme Court office of the female justice.

The senator also pointed out that Daisy Cecilia Deles, a judicial staff officer, has already executed an affidavit denying that she was aware of any bribery attempt involving her former boss.
“This is a scenario out of thin air. The alleged eyewitness has already executed an affidavit that she did not witness any such thing. She recently resigned to avail of her retirement benefits, but that was sometime ago,” the senator said.

“It is plain diabolic to spin a routine staff retirement into a completely fictitious tale of alleged bribery. They are desperate, because Justice Santiago is known in legal circles to be as immovable as a rock,” the senator said.

Santiago warned that if the plot to discredit the female justice succeeds, then no public official will be immune from character assassination.

“I hope media keeps its head on this gossip. If it is given undue publicity, then any honest public official can be brought down by any criminal mob, just by sending a box of peso bills to the office, and paying off certain media practitioners to peddle the story. If they go far enough, I will call for a Senate probe into the actuations of those media practitioners,” she said.

The senator said that her strong sentiments on the alleged character assassination of the female justice were shared by the members of the UP WILOCI (Women Lawyers Circle), particularly Atty. Katrina Legarda, and by civil society, particularly civic leader Maribel Ongpin.

-o0o-

News Release

25 September 2007

MIRIAM: BOW TO SUPREME COURT, HALT SENATE PROBE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, joining Sen. Joker Arroyo, called for a halt in the Senate probe on the RP-China (ZTE) loan agreement, on the ground of “interdepartmental courtesy” to the Supreme Court.

“The Senate rules allow the inquiry to continue, despite a concurrent Supreme Court case. But it is better to give the Supreme Court enough breathing space, simply out of respect. The probe is adding to the political noise,” she said.

Santiago said that if the Senate blue ribbon and two other committees decide to continue the probe, she would continue to participate, after expressing her personal opinion.

“I have no power to halt the probe, but I will not snub it, because an individual senator generally follows a committee decision,” she said.

Santiago said that suspended loan negotiations must wait for final decision by the Supreme Court, which has already issued a TRO against it.

Santiago also said that if the Supreme Court allows the deal to be concluded, it would be an executive agreement, which does not need Senate concurrence but only Monetary Board approval.

“But the question of the alleged irregularities in its negotiation is a separate issue,” the senator said.

Santiago explained that after the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against ongoing negotiations, President Arroyo “had no option but to suspend the proceedings.”

In a privilege speech yesterday, Santiago said that the Constitution requires Senate concurrence for a “treaty or international agreement,” but the Supreme Court has consistently held that an executive agreement is an exception to this rule.

Santiago said that the loan agreement is an executive agreement, on the following grounds:

1. It is a soft loan and the risks to the nation are not significant.
   
   
2. It is not intended to affect Philippine laws.
   
   
3. It can be implemented without the enactment of subsequent legislation, save for the necessary provision in the national appropriations act.
   
   
4. Past foreign loan agreements have been upheld as valid executive agreement, notably in the 2007 Abaya and Kolonwel cases.
   
   
5. It is a short-term agreement.
   
   
6. The validity of an executive agreement is considered a norm of international law, and more specifically as a principle of international customary law. In international law as in Philippine constitutional law, custom is the best interpreter of the laws. Optimum legum interpres consuetudo.
   
   
7. To require Senate concurrence would compromise the constitutional power of the President as chief diplomatic officer.

Santiago said the deal can only be concluded, if Malacanang follows a five-step process consisting of a Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Forward Obligational Authority, Full Powers to the Department of Finance (DOF), signing by the DOF of the loan agreement, Monetary Board approval, and congressional appropriation in the national budget.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

21 September 2007

On the China-US turf war in the NBN controversy

We cannot discount the possibility that there is a turf war ongoing between China and America for this contract, because of the three (bidders), one is Filipino, the second is American and the third is Chinese. I just want to know if our government is being manipulated on this matter, that the scandal is being deliberately blown out of proportion by a struggle for regional power. And since we are a small, virtually insignificant country, we are being manipulated by some intelligence agency to take one way with respect to a billion-peso contract. That is my first concern.

On what she would ask in the next ZTE hearing

As much as we (senators) were unable to raise questions because we were limited to three minutes, I wanted to know if the meeting in Wack Wack Golf and Country Club between the First Gentleman and Mr. Joey de Venecia was the first between these two men, because as a former trial judge I find absolutely unnatural that after an introduction and a dialogue of very few minutes immediately one of them points his finger to the other and uses a very harsh warning (of) “Back off!” No person would do that unless they are intimate with each other.

On the ZTE as loan or executive agreement

Under the Constitution, all loans must be approved by the Monetary Board. It immediately follows in that same section in the Constitution, the provision that all treaties and international agreements must be approved by the Senate. So first, we have to determine: Is this is a loan? Then we need Monetary Board approval. Is this a treaty or international agreement? Then it needs Senate concurrence. Everybody calls it a loan, there’s no doubt about it. Both sides characterize it as a soft loan. Unfortunately there is the Procurement Law, that provides that if the government enters an executive agreement, then that transaction is exempted from the usual legal bidding process. That is the justification for why there was no bidding. But if it is an executive agreement, it might fall under the term “treaties and other international agreements” in our Constitution, which requires Senate ratification. I will explain next Monday that executive agreements need Senate ratification as a general rule. The mere fact that you call it an executive agreement does not exempt it from the constitutional requirement. However, there is an accepted exception to that general rule, that if a new treaty or international agreement is merely carrying out the provisions of a prior or mother treaty or international agreement, it does not need Senate concurrence. Malacañang has to justify why this so-called executive agreement is merely an execution or a further amplification of a former prior treaty between China and the Philippines.

On JDV’s involvment

If he has been accurately and correctly quoted by Sec. Mendoza, the language alone is already implicative of criminal liability because he was trying to influence the procurement of a government contract involving public funds. It falls under the specific and express prohibition of the Anti-Graft Practices Act, he is a relative within the third degree of consanguinity of the interested party.

If he was just inviting, there was no violation as yet of criminal law. But the moment he introduces the element of his son, Amsterdam Holdings and the ZTE contract, then there is a clear violation of the law.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Santiago’s interview after the JPEPA hearing

20 September 2007

As I’ve said, there would be five hearings but now I’ve decided to make the following amendments: 1) we are going to move Environment next week because there are senators who would be going abroad on official business and (since) this is the most controversial aspect; 2) the opposition raised many constitutional issues, and this is a very worrisome to the legislators and we will have another topic in our fifth hearing. We are going to invite former Justice and former WTO Judge of the Arbitrary Tribunal Florentino Feliciano and Dean Merlin Magallona (former professor of the UP College of Law) who is a recognized expert in International Law. We simply have to dispose of the constitutional issues in our final report.

If this were a boxing match, Round 1 went to the opposition, and I’m afraid Round 2 (also) went to the opposition. It is getting worserer and worserer, as Alice said in Alice in Wonderland. (Members of) the government panel do not seem to understand what senators are searching for. Why is JPEPA on the whole better for the Philippines? This is not a zero-sum game. We don’t really want to know if Japan is giving up things or whether Japan would achieve more gains or losses. What will (our) country gain in exchange for all the concessions we are making?

There was no response at all to the issue of why are some provisions that are favorable to the host country not included in our JPEPA version. There are JPEPA versions in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and even Mexico. Why are some of these provisions that these governments insisted on during negotiations absent in ours? We are making so much concessions. That is the first failure on the part of the government panel: the failure to show that our concessions offset or balance what we shall gain. All the government panel could site were theoretical simulations or studies. They are far-removed from economic reality.

The second issue here is what long-term effect will this treaty have. In effect, we are binding future generations of Filipinos. We are only looking at the present. But what about the future? We (the senators) do not see that. It would be extremely difficult to get the senate in plenary session to approve of this treaty. There are questions that are left unanswered as of this second round. It would be extremely difficult for me to defend this (the treaty) if I’m not given the proper arguments. I’ve already been feeding the government panel with leading questions, but still the answers are not supplied. When the opposition raises certain issues, the administration just ploughs over their prepared statements and does not respond. This is turning out to be an experience in the surreal. This is not the way a debate should be; it should always center on necessity, benefits and practicality.

Everything will depend on the last three hearings. But for me as a lawyer, it is very important that we dispose of the constitutional issues raised today.

How am I going to defend this document before my twenty-two peers in the Senate if today the government cannot answer basic questions? I refuse to crucify myself. I’m going to go up in flames.

So far I can see that there is a great sense of resentment and failure on the part of the Committee members. They all sense that [the treaty] is going to be a loser. Unless the government becomes more energetic in its arguments, it is going to be decked by the opposition.

-o0o-

Transcript of today’s media interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

19 September 2007

On the decision of President Arroyo to allow executive officials to appear before Senate hearings:

As a lawyer and a senator, I commend the President for allowing her cabinet members and other high executive officials to appear and honor the invitation or the subpoena from the respective Senate committees that are presently holding investigations on certain transactions by the Executive allegedly participated in by certain executive officials. This is in keeping with the trend in the Supreme Court to expand the power of Congress to conduct legislative enquiries that are in aid of legislation. It was in a series of cases last year where the Supreme Court made the power broader on the ground that the right to hold legislative investigations in aid of legislation is constitutionally protected. The right is specifically provided for in our Constitution. Therefore, all the powers that are needed for the efficient discharge of this constitutional duty should be granted to the Senate. What for is our power to investigate if we subpoena people and they wouldn’t come and will be considered excused. We should have the coercive power to cite for contempt. And we should have the power to call any person and to compel that person to testify before us. If his testimony is irrelevant, then we can judge for ourselves, but he must come first. He cannot interpret the relevance or materiality of his testimony by himself. He has to allow the Senate to pass on that. In the same way that no public official can claim executive privilege, and expect the Senate to accept it. We also have the power in the Senate to pass upon the question of whether executive privilege is being properly invoked or not. All of these actions by President Arroyo are consonant with Supreme Court decisions, the first of which is Senate v. Ermita, where the Supreme Court said that there can be no blanket invocation of executive privilege, each claim must be explained in full to the Senate. The second is Gudani v. Senga, where the Supreme Court said that even military officers cannot claim to be obeying the prohibition of the President, as commander-in-chief, to appear before the Senate. Even the military power of the President must yield to the power of legislative inquiry by the Senate. In Sabio v. Gordon, the Supreme Court said that even though a case was pending in the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the officials subpoenaed by the Senate must appear before the Senate. There is an implication that even though a case is pending before a judicial tribunal, the Senate still has the power to compel persons to testify about those pending cases. They cannot use as an excuse the doctrine of sub judice. This is a welcome development. I am sure that the senators will appreciate the President’s cooperative attitude.

On the First Gentleman being subpoenaed by the Senate:

We are bound by the doctrine of interdepartmental comity. This means that we have to be courteous of each other because there are three branches (of government), and each branch is equal to and independent of each other. If we in the Senate invite or even subpoena the First Gentleman, he should, as a matter of courtesy, appear and explain why his testimony is not relevant or what has been said about him is false. No person may be excused just by writing a letter to the Senate. They must appear and explain why they think they should no longer be asked to testify. If the Senate insists that they testify, then they have to, because the Supreme Court said that the power of contempt of the Senate is equal to the power of the courts.

Suppose the First Gentleman say that according to his doctors, this might be either fatal to him or seriously impair his medical health, then we can subpoena his doctors if we want to go behind him and if we don’t want to accept his explanation on its face. We are at a liberty to subpoena his doctors. But an investigation need not be a fatal threat in his medical condition. It just has to be potentially and substantially injurious to a person’s health. If this is the case, we have to apply the rule in our Senate Rules of Procedure that the rights of persons affected by the legislative inquiry must be respected. Certainly, the right to life or good health must be protected. But if it comes to that, we first have to wait for the response of the First Gentleman.

The First Gentleman cannot just ignore a subpoena from the Senate. But as an exception, he can submit a letter if the very fact of his appearance in the Senate may, for example, raise his blood pressure or already damage his heart. In that case, we must make an exception for him. But if some senators are skeptical, then we can subpoena his doctors.

-o0o-

Excerpts from Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

18 September 2007

It seems to me that this young man’s behavior is contrary to human nature. He lost in the bidding. The normal reaction is to ask for a re-bidding if you really think that the winning bid was not pursuant to the specifications and if you really think that your own bid would have been better for the country. But instead of making a only a cursory denial, or denunciation of the successful bidder, he is raining automatic gunfire on almost everybody in sight. He is trying to annihilate everybody who has a direct connection with President Arroyo. That is why I say that his behavior is bizarre. And you cannot help but reach the conclusion that he is merely a stool pigeon, he is speaking for a political group that is trying to scandalize the administration.

Who is he speaking for? He is always in the media. The level of political noise he is making is extremely high. You and I know that you won’t get this kind of publicity just making allegations without any proof at all. So this must be a very expensive campaign. My question is: who is funding young this man?

If he is a genuine oppositor, if he is bent on exposing corruption in government, he should have presented his evidence long ago. Instead, he is concentrating on making sensational statements. Where are his witnesses? Or where are the papers that at least implicate these figures? He is a loose cannon but he is not as wild as he seems to be. I think he is merely fronting for a group whose ultimate goal is to create political instability so that President Arroyo will be removed before her term officially ends in 2010, and install another. I have some idea who this “other” is, but again, unlike this person I am criticizing, I’m a trained lawyer. I don’t want to name names unless I have at least some semblance of proof.

[This issue] has to be diligently and conscientiously investigated by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. We cannot all just jump when someone makes a sensational statement. We have to show the public that a Senate Committee investigation is a serious, solemn discharge of duty. Whenever any person makes an allegation, he must be immediately asked to produce at least prima facie, the barest minimum, evidence, to support his claims. Otherwise, all Senate Committee hearings here will be nothing but sensationalist circus.

I want to ask the person why is it that he has never answered the objections or criticisms of his bid, or the justifications presented for the winning bid. In the first place, his corporation is charged with being a mere shell. There is nothing inside. It had an original capital of some Php 300,000.00 according to the certificate of registration issued at the SEC. It had a paid up capital of some Php 300,000 and an authorized capital of Php 5M. And he is trying to pursue half a billion’s worth of public funds. How on earth could you have possibly justified his qualifications? He doesn’t even try to prove his qualifications. He is on a warpath. He is on a bloodbath. We will have to make that young man answer if he is lying to the committee.

He is accusing high public officials of graft and corruption, a misbehavior punishable under the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He is making a criminal accusation against them. That certainly, if not accompanied by a modicum of proof, can be libelous. He enjoys no parliamentary immunity… this young man, I am sure, will be facing libel charges or charges of inciting to sedition.

I’m sure that he will be called again, and I hope that by that time, senators will be bent on placing the onus or burden of proof on the accuser, not on the accused. That is the way our judicial or legal system works.

I have advantage over other senators because I have received background information on him. He is not a mere disgruntled bidder. The mere fact that this is so highly publicized and that the angle has always been “who has been corrupt in the Arroyo administration?” … (means that) a lot of money has been spent.

-o0o-

News Release

18 September 2007

MIRIAM: WHO’S FUNDING JOEY?

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that Jose de Venecia III, the accuser in the controversial NBN (National Broadband Network) deal, has to explain what group he is representing, and said she suspects that it is not only his own corporation, AHI (Amsterdam Holdings, Inc.), which lost in the bidding.

“He lost the bid, but he is not even trying for a rebidding. Instead, he is spraying automatic gunfire on the First Gentleman, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo, Comelec Commissioner Benjamin Abalos, and DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza. This is exceedingly strange,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that she “smells a plot” intended to scandalize President Arroyo, and to create intrigue between her and Jose de Venecia, Jr., Speaker of the House and father of the accuser.

“The political noise has reached a very high decibel level. Producing that kind of noise is very expensive. So where is the money coming from?” she said.

Santiago said that it is possible that the accuser, Joey de Venecia is funded by a group that wants to oust President Arroyo before 2010 and to install someone else.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that he who alleges must prove. We have to conduct a background check on the accuser. Like a good detective story, the Senate hearings should be able to determine what his motive is, and who is funding him, if any,” the senator said.

On the alleged participation in the transaction by the First Gentleman, Santiago said that if it is not satisfactorily explained, it might be difficult to get Senate approval on the 2008 budget on which the Senate is already conducting public hearings.

“That’s got to be the shocker of the month. Someone is telling a very big lie. Which party is peddling the lie will hold the key to Senate approval of the loan,” she said.

Santiago, Senate finance committee vice-chair, said that the NBN project can be completed only with congressional approval through next year’s budget.

“The public officials involved should stop acting as if this were a done deal. It is not, and it is Congress which will have final say,” she said.

Santiago explained that congressional approval is necessary, since the NBN project would create a future debt for the country, which would require payment by the national treasury.
Santiago said that there are five steps that should be taken for the project to be considered completed.

First, the budget department has to issue a FOA, meaning Forward Obligational Authority.

Second, the Office of the President has to issue full powers to the finance department.

Third, the finance department, on behalf of the Philippine government, has to enter into the loan agreement.

Fourth, the Monetary Board has to approve the loan.

Fifth and finally, Congress has to approve the loan through the 2008 budget or the Annual Appropriations Act, in the exercise of the constitutional power to approve the budget prepared by the Office of the President.

Santiago said that her finance subcommittee will conduct a public hearing on the budget for the Office of the President this Friday, September 21, and she will ask the Malacañang representative if the proposed budget includes anticipated payments for the foreign debt that the NBN loan will involve.

-o0o-

News Release

18 September 2007

MIRIAM: ERAP HAS TO ADMIT GUILT

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that both pardon and amnesty will imply guilt on the part of former President Joseph Estrada, if he decides to apply for executive clemency.

Santiago, in a privilege speech last Monday, urged Estrada to apply for pardon and not amnesty, which is granted to political offenses and not to those convicted of plunder.

Santiago derided lawyers who have claimed that either pardon or amnesty does not imply guilt.
The senator said that in the 1965 case of People v Pasilan, the Supreme Court ruled: “Availing of the benefits granted by the amnesty proclamation would be inconsistent with the plea of not guilty which appellant entered upon for arraignment. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when the accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot avail himself of amnesty.”

She also cited the 1989 case of Monsanto v Factoran, Jr., where the Supreme Court ruled: “Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof.”

Santiago added that the Monsanto ruling was repeated in the later 1993 case of Garcia v Chairman, Commission on Audit.

“The latest cases show that both amnesty and pardon imply guilt on the part of the applicant. President Estrada should be so advised, in order to avoid injustice to him,” Santiago said.

The senator said that Estrada would not qualify for amnesty, because it is only granted for a political offense, which she defined as “an ideologically motivated act, expressing political opposition, directed against the security of the state.”

Santiago said that the “paradigmatic political offenses” are coup d’etat, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and treason.

During interpellation by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Santiago said that the grant of executive clemency to the former President would bring closure to the issue which has divided the nation for the six years that trial was pending in the Sandiganbayan.

Also in answer to the younger Estrada’s question, Santiago said that an appeal to the Supreme Court will take at least two years to decide, while a motion for new trial with the Sandigan, if granted, would result in a completely new trial which could take another six years.

“In the meantime, Pres. Estrada and his supporters will continue to suffer mental anguish, and the nation will remain in political distress,” Santiago said.

When Sen. Estrada asked if there was any other remedy available to his father other than pardon or amnesty which would not imply an admission of guilt, Santiago said there is none, except the judicial remedies such as motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or appeal to the Supreme Court.

She cited the principle that even if the law proves to be harsh, it is the law and therefore must be obeyed: dura lex, sed lex.

Santiago ended with a sarcastic note: “I believe that all the talkative people who have either been advising or speaking for Pres. Estrada should do him the justice of full legal research.”

-o0o-

News Release

17 September 2007

MIRIAM CALLS DOBLE “IMPEACHED WITNESS”

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, after rapid-fire questioning of T/Sgt. Vidal Doble, Jr., called him “an impeached witness” because he apparently contradicted himself several times during her cross-examination.

“He fell apart, and his nerves are shot. He twisted himself into so many contradictions in just five minutes that under the Rules of Court, we can now consider that his general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad,” Santiago said.

Santiago, using Doble’s military service record called “Summary of Information,” pointed out that from 2000 to 2002, a period of two years, Doble was always assigned to “wire” operations. She then asked Doble if the word “wire” meant that Doble was a wiretapping operative.

Doble denied that he was engaged in wiretapping, and claimed that the word “wire” referred only to the installation and repair of military telephones.

“For emphasis, are you now claiming that you have nothing to do with wiretapping operations, whether legal or not, of the ISAFP MIG-21?” Santiago pressed. She then pointed out that if Doble had no wiretap assignments, then he is not qualified to testify on the alleged wiretapping of former Comelec Commissioner Garcillano and President Arroyo.

As a result, Doble changed his testimony and said that he was involved in the Garci wiretapping.

Santiago noted with sarcasm that if his job was to install and repair telephones, then it was inexplicable why he had been suddenly assigned to a very sensitive wiretapping operation.

Doble at first said that he was merely following orders of superior authorities. But Santiago pointed out that the Nuremberg Tribunal already ruled that obedience to superior orders is not a valid defense in a criminal case, and followed it up with the statement that the same principle is now applied in human rights law.

At first Doble said he did not see any court order for the wiretap, because he was only following instructions of his superiors. But after a few more questions, he claimed that there was a court order, but he could not produce it.

Santiago asked Doble if he had ever been to two addresses which she gave as: Penthouse Solid Mills Building, Dela Rosa St., Legaspi Village, Makati City; and as Travellers Inn, along Makati Avenue. Doble said he had been there.

When Santiago asked if he went to those addresses because they were safehouses, Doble admitted that the addresses were safehouses.

This prompted Santiago to ask him why he was reporting to safehouses, if he merely installed and repaired telephones. Doble had no answer to that one.

Under Santiago’s questioning, Doble admitted that he met his two mistresses, who are both GROs (Guest Relations Officers) – Marietta Santos and Jocelyn Andaya – in KTV bars, even giving the addresses of the bars.

Santiago then went on to ask Doble how he could afford to support his legal family and two mistresses on his admitted monthly salary of less than P20,000, before taxes. Doble said he was not supporting his mistresses.

“So now are you implying that your mistresses support you?” Santiago asked, to general laughter.

Santiago said that when Doble was assigned to work at the PAOCTF (Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force) under Senator Panfilo Lacson for some 10 months, Doble allegedly received a monthly allowance of P30,000. Doble replied that his PAOCTF allowance was merely P5,000 a month.

Santiago said she had received an anonymous envelope purportedly containing a signed statement from Arlene Doble and that she had requested Chair Rodolfo Biazon to invite her to testify, but Biazon’s staff said Arlene could not be found.

Santiago suggested that Arlene should either be invited again or subpoenaed, and then requested for a subpoena duces tecum to compel certain government agencies to produce or support documents that are mentioned or implied in Arlene’s alleged statement.

In her alleged statement, Arlene Doble said that she and her children were free and not imprisoned inside the military camp. She allegedly said that her children attended school there, and that she took her autistic child Dahrren for regular visits to the Philippine Children’s Hospital.

Arlene also allegedly claimed that she accused Doble of physical abuse in a blotter entry of the Pasay City police. Further, she allegedly claimed that she filed a complaint against her husband that was also recorded in the blotter of the Kidapawan City Police Department.

Arlene also alleged that while the family were staying in the military camp, they were paid official home visits by the DSWD.

To evaluate all these allegations, Santiago requested the committees to issue subpoena duces tecum to the agencies involved to produce the relevant documents.

-o0o-

Excerpts from Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview after the “Hello Garci” hearing

17 September 2007

On Doble as witness

As far as I am concerned, so far, Doble is an impeached witness. Ibig sabihin, wala siyang kredibilidad. The rule under the Rules of Court is he who alleges must prove. Kung meron kang iniistorya, ikaw ang dapat magpruweba, hindi ang kalaban. Kailangan niyang i-pruweba lahat ng sinasabi niya. Dahil wala ng ibang testigo, una maghanap na ng iba, baka si Arlene Doble, kung makikita. Pangalawa, ay ang to impeach him (Doble) by showing that he is generally a person who is untrustworthy or dishonest.

On the absence of the invited members of the executive branch in the hearing

Maling mali naman iyon. Nag-privilege speech na ako kung ano ang procedure. Una, sinabi ng Korte Suprema sa Senate v. Ermita, na hindi pwedeng i-invoke ang E.O. No. 464 dahil invalid iyan. Ini-invoke nila ngayon; bakit naman? Pangalawa, sabi, kung gusto ninyo, talagang may doktrina tayo ng executive privilege pero dapat i-invoke iyan ng Presidente sa pamamagitan ng Execuitive Secretary. The invocation if the doctrine of executive privilege should be expressed, not implicit. Ang mga excuse letters nila are not expressed invocations of executive privilege. At best they are only implied. That is not valid according to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court very categorically said that only the President through her Executive Secretary can invoke it. And she cannot just make a blanket invocation; she has to specify why is this classified as a state military secret. Pangalawa, they have to give certain facts or data to justify to justify the invocation. They cannot just make a vague, overbroad invocation.

Dapat i-contempt sila dahil nag-privilege speech na ako. Nagkasundo naman kaming mga senador na tama ang aking interpretasyon ng ating batas at ng desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema. Binigyan pa sila ng kopya. Pinapaliwanag na, ayaw pang tanggapin. Wala na kaming option. Dapat i-cite sila for contempt. Kung hindi, mawawalan ng respeto ang publiko para sa Senado.

I am very irritated about the excuses, which to me are very, very flimsy. Still I realize that as much as possible, we must avoid a direct confrontation between the Office of the President and the Senate.

 -o0o-

Announcement

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, will hold on 14 September 2007, Friday, 10 a.m., at the Pecson Room, Philippine Senate, the first public hearing on the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). The topic will be trade and investment.

News Release

10 September 2007

MIRIAM BILL WILL OUTLAW FRATS; SAYS HAZING INCLUDES RAPE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said she will file a bill to abolish, under certain circumstances, campus fraternities and sororities, on the theory that their relationship with campus administration is contractual, and the school has a constitutional right to set standards for student organizations.

“In the most recent 2002 case of Tigret v University of Virginia, the US Court of Appeals said that student organizations are bound by the contract under the university’s Standard of Conduct. As long as the students have been given due process in the form of a fair hearing, they can be expelled,” said Santiago, a constitutional law expert.

More specifically, Santiago cited the 2000 case filed by Pi Lambda Phi Fraternity v University of Pittsburg, where the US Court of Appeals ruled that campus have the right to ban fraternities if their actions are criminal, or if there was a failure to live up to fraternal rights and principles.
US legal trends indicate that campuses have the right to ban fraternities and sororities for violations of their contract with the school, under the applicable codes of conduct and organizational standards.

Santiago said that members of the UP Sigma Rho fraternity can be abolished because their existence was authorized by UP under the Student Guide which include rules and regulations on student conduct and discipline, as well as those governing fraternities, sororities, and other student organizations.

“The fraternity violated its contract, and should therefore be abolished,” she said.

Santiago issued the statement during a courtesy call on her yesterday (Monday, 10 September) by Crusade Against Violence, including the mother of Cris Anthony Mendes, who recently died from alleged having.

Santiago said that the constitutional provision protecting the right to form associations is based on the condition that the associations will not pursue purposes contrary to law.

“As long as the bill is narrowly drawn so that it is not overbroad, and as long as the bill provides for due process in the form of a fair hearing for students, it will pass Congress,” Santiago said.
Santiago added that according to her confidential informant now in Canada, and formerly a professor at UP Los Baños, some female students during hazing rites were given dangerous drugs and raped during the ceremonies.

-o0o-

News Release

10 September 2007

JPEPA HEARING SEPTEMBER 14

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the first public hearing on the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) has been moved back to Friday, September 14, because Trade Secretary Peter Favila and Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo are obliged to attend the APEC forum in Sydney this week, and will be back only on 11 September. Then both have to appear at budget hearing at the House of Representatives.

Santiago said each hearing of the Committee will be devoted to only one topic, in the order in which they are listed, as follows: trade and investment; economics; movement of goods and services; movement of natural persons; and environmental effects.

Santiago said she will advice the cabinet officials and civil society members concerned to stick to the topic for each session, so that proceedings can start methodically.

The senator added that during each hearing, the government panel will be matched by a civil society panel, so that on each topic, both will always be heard.

Santiago said that after September 14, she intends to hold weekly sessions every Thursday morning, making in all a total of five sessions.

“If the resource persons cooperate with the specified agenda, we should finish public hearings by 11 October. The committee report will then be circulated for signature among the committee members. If the majority votes in favor of the JPEPA, then I should be able to deliver the sponsorship speech by the first week of November,” she said.

She said after plenary debates, she hopes the Senate will concur with JPEPA before the yearend.

Santiago said she did not expect partisan lines to be drawn during the hearings, or during the submission of the committee report.

“I want this to be a sober, scholarly analysis of the JPEPA placed in its regional context. I will try to keep the atmosphere as objective as I can, and will discourage speculation or hypothetical scenarios. There is a good chance the JPEPA will be able to get two-thirds vote of the Senate, if the Foreign Relations Committee takes care to study every argument, unswayed by sensationalist aspects of the treaty,” she said.

-o0o-

News Release

3 September 2007

MIRIAM PUSHES FOR SENATE PROBE OF UP HAZING DEATH

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago today filed Senate Resolution No. 112 calling for a legislative investigation on the death of Cris Anthony Mendez, a student of the University of the Philippines-Diliman.
Authorities have confirmed today that Mendez died due to hazing-related injuries.

“As a mother who has also lost her son, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the mother of Cris Anthony,” she said. “I know how difficult it is to lose a son.”

Santiago said Republic Act No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law, must undergo a comprehensive review because it has failed to serve as a deterrent to hazing within fraternities, sororities, and student organizations since its enactment.

The senator also wants those responsible for Mendez’s death to be prosecuted and punished.

Under the Anti-Hazing Law, if a person dies due to hazing, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation in the hazing as a principal unless he or she prevented the commission of the hazing acts.

According to Santiago, UP officials must shed light on the anti-hazing measures it has implemented in the University.

“The UP administration must explain the measures it has taken to monitor the hazing or initiation rites of fraternities, sororities, and other student organizations within the University, given the duty imposed by the Anti-Hazing Law on school authorities,” Santiago said.

Under the Anti-Hazing Law, no hazing or initiation rites in any form by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven days before the conduct of such initiation. The written notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three days, and shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities. The written notice must also contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

The law further mandates that the head of the school must assign at least two representatives to be present during the initiation. It is the duty of the representatives to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit or a neophyte.

-o0o-

News Release

3 September 2007

MIRIAM PUSHES FOR SENATE PROBE OF UP HAZING DEATH

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago today filed Senate Resolution No. 112 calling for a legislative investigation on the death of Cris Anthony Mendez, a student of the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Authorities have confirmed today that Mendez died due to hazing-related injuries.
“As a mother who has also lost her son, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the mother of Cris Anthony,” she said. “I know how difficult it is to lose a son.”

Santiago said Republic Act No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law, must undergo a comprehensive review because it has failed to serve as a deterrent to hazing within fraternities, sororities, and student organizations since its enactment.

The senator also wants those responsible for Mendez’s death to be prosecuted and punished.
Under the Anti-Hazing Law, if a person dies due to hazing, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation in the hazing as a principal unless he or she prevented the commission of the hazing acts.
According to Santiago, UP officials must shed light on the anti-hazing measures it has implemented in the University.

“The UP administration must explain the measures it has taken to monitor the hazing or initiation rites of fraternities, sororities, and other student organizations within the University, given the duty imposed by the Anti-Hazing Law on school authorities,” Santiago said.

Under the Anti-Hazing Law, no hazing or initiation rites in any form by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven days before the conduct of such initiation. The written notice shall indicate the period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three days, and shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities. The written notice must also contain an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

The law further mandates that the head of the school must assign at least two representatives to be present during the initiation. It is the duty of the representatives to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit or a neophyte.

-o0o-