Email update

We have been experiencing difficulties in miriam@miriam.com.ph's server for two months now. In the meantime please direct your emails to mdsmediabureau@yahoo.com. 

We deeply apologize for all the trouble.

And Happy Holidays!


Tom

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s Interview
17 December 2007

On the case of Jalosjos

This is bizarre. This is highly unusual that there were certain documents purporting to authorize the release of a convict and then the highest authorizing person, the President, denied any veracity to the release of the convict. In the first place, in constitutional terms, the power to extend executive clemency belongs completely to the President and is completely discretionary. If she wants to grant it, she can. If the order has not yet been implemented or executed she can withdraw. But in this case, she President is saying that she never issued an order.

Is issue then is not merely whether his (Jalosjos’) sentence has been commuted, or that he could be released this year or some other time, but where did these documents come from? And if the Presidents says that she never authorized them, then who authorized them? That is fraud on the public, particularly on the prisoner, because his expectations were raised, and that is a very cruel joke to play on somebody.

The issue here is who authorized the documents, because clearly he was acting outside of his jurisdiction. In the second place, if there were signatures on the documents pertaining to the release, then either those signatures were authentic and those who signed are criminally liable for excess or abuse of authority; or, if the signatures were forged, then it was a public forgery, and should therefore investigated by the NBI.

On moving to bypass DOE Sec. Angelo Reyes in the Commission on Appointments

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and I have jointly signed a letter informing the Senate President that we both intend, in plenary session of the Commission on Appointments, to evoke Section 20 of the CA Rules. On the part of Senator Estrada, [his] basis for the veto will be that when his father was Commander in Chief, Sec. Reyes, who was then AFP Chief of Staff, have broken the chain of command. In my case, I simply believe that he is unfit for the office. I am against this practice of rewarding military officials for breaking the law in favor of one presidential personality against another, rewarding them with a series of government posts for which his educational background or training have never prepared him. I am squarely against the attitude that a military general can be given any civilian position regardless of his background. In government we must giver authority who are capable of assuming the responsibility by, among other things, academic preparation for the subject.

I am an administration senator, but I must take a position on the role of the military in civilian affairs because we have a tendency to glamorize the military as if they are the source of all political knowledge in the country. This is not so. Sovereignty resides in the people, not in the military.

-o0o-

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s Interview
14 December 2007

On the JPEPA

By January, on the first working week, I intend to sponsor the JPEPA, provided that I am able to convince the Japanese ambassador that we shall have a side agreement or an exchange of notes that will preclude any finding of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court. As I have said, that is the threshold question. I think we have also because more or less we have reached a consensus on the language to be employed. The main concern here is that if we substantially alter the provisions of JPEPA, then, under Japanese law, the JPEPA will have to go through the Japanese parliament or Diet all over again. Naturally, the Japanese government does not wish to do that. It is going to delay the matter maybe by a year.

So what we are trying to do is very sensitive. What we are trying to do is craft a vocabulary or a formula that would be acceptable to the Japanese government and will preclude the necessity of submitting the JPEPA all over again to the parliament, and at the same time will satisfy the constitutional requirements of our own Philippine Constitution, so that we can be safely assured that if any petition is brought to the Supreme Court, at least the question of constitutionality, we shall be upheld both on the part of the Senate and the executive branch.

I think we are nearly there because the Japanese ambassador has been very accommodating and cooperative. The formula is with me. I am trying to word it very carefully and calling on all resources of academic training so that we can meet the requirements of Japanese law and Philippine law at the same time.

With regards to the trade and industry provision, there will be no major changes, maybe just a slight amendment on the language employed. I don’t think it would cause any controversy. I think we will have a JPEPA by the first three months of the new year.

On the JCPC’s contempt charge against Transco President and CEO Arthur Aguilar

He submitted a motion for reconsideration, and under the Epira Law that grants powers and jurisdiction of the JCPC of which I am chair, then I find his explanation acceptable and will reconsider the citation for contempt. Apparently he is also very sick.

On the proposed revival of the Anti-Subversion Law

That is a step backward. Under the Anti-Subversion Law, mere membership is punishable, and that would be unconstitutional because it would impinge on the constitutionally protected right of freedom of assembly and association. Although the previous Anti-Subversion Law provided that any member could be prosecuted provided that the member is in possession of arms or in the act of calling on an uprising against the government. Nonetheless, the language is so vague that it could be justifiably accused of unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of assembly and association. Just because you are a member of a party it does not mean that you are guilty of whatever some members have committed, that would be guilt by association which has already been rejected by our Supreme Court.

I believe that the present provisions of our Penal Code on insurrection, sedition, inciting sedition, and the Anti-Terror Law or the Human Security Act already provide amply for the protection of the state against rebels and subversives. But you cannot just hail a person to detention just because you suspect him to be a subversive. That was the authority granted to law enforcers in the Anti-Subversion Law, and that is why it was repealed in 1992.

Do you think it would gain support in the Senate?

No. Considering that the Senate is opposition dominated, plus because of the constitutional issues that it raises, I don’t think it would gain any ground in the Senate or even in the House. These two chambers of the legislature are very sensitive to public opinion, and I think it is indefensible to be able to arrest and prosecute a person just because he or she is a member of a political group. That is antidemocratic.

On the Senate Committee on Energy hearing

The Renewable Energy Bill has been filed in various forms by thirteen senators, so I can already foresee a brief and happy debate in the Senate because we already have thirteen votes, meaning even before we have debated it is already sure of being passed in the Senate. We want to develop renewable energy so that we will no longer be dependent on the fluctuating price of oil. This is actually an oil independence law. We want to give incentives to people who want to develop renewable energy facilities by, for example, exempting them from tariff duties, value-added tax, giving them substantial discounts in realty taxes and income taxes. There are a lot of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives.

On the part of the consumer, the law provides for green energy option, meaning if you choose not to avail of your electricity from the standard electricity supplier which is always sourced from oil, but from a supplier that sources its energy from a renewable energy source. It provides for a discount or a tax holiday when you avail of this option. Binibigyan natin ang consumer ng karapatan para mamili kung alin ang panggagalingan ng kanilang kuryente. Kung oil, kung tumaas ang presyo ng langis, tataas rin ang presyo ng iyong kuryente. O kaya kung renewable energy sources, bibigyan ka ng diskuwento ng gobyerno o babawasan ang iyong income tax. Basically this is an incentives bill so that our country will be weaned away from total oil dependence to renewable energy. We have already agreed with the executive branch that his will be prioritized.

Can the proceeds from the sale of the government’s energy assets be used to lower electricity rates?

You can use it in that sense only if the money is turned over to the National Treasury. Remember when we sell our electricity assets, part of it will go to the government, part of it will go to the National Treasury. That part that goes to the National Treasury can be used by Congress by the President when she submits her proposed budget to subsidize oil prices.

As you have heard the PISTON president this morning, apparently this (public transportation) is an industry crying for help, and the only way you can help an oil industry-based service sector is by subsidy, either by exempting oil from the usual taxes or by government stockpiling it. He made a very radical proposal; he wants government to buy Petron, which we already sold. As I’ve pointed out yesterday, it is very important that we must reconsider and study carefully the sale of our asset kasi kapag nabenta mo na iyon, mahirap na bilhin ito muli.

I say that [subsidy] is a real possibility. Imagine, the peso-dollar parity is now almost Php40, baka bumaba pa. We cannot go back to oil regulation. That would be a step backward.

You’ll notice that there is a periodic sense in the public to change presidents whenever there is an oil price increase. Any president who is historically-conscious will make sure that the almost cyclical increases in oil prices will not affect his or her incumbency.

On Sen. Madrigal’s insistence that there is an anomaly in the Transco sale

That is for her to prove. As far as we could gather from yesterday’s JCPC hearing, there is no documented evidence of her charges. She makes these accusations, but in court you need evidence, and it could either be testimonial or documentary. You have to have a witness who has first hand knowledge that there is a subversion of the Anti-Dummy Law because in effect the charge is that there is no Razon name in any of the papers involved and he is acting through somebody else. To make that charge stick you have to present either a witness who can testify through first hand knowledge, or documentary evidence. I doubt very much if that is possible.

There is an accusation, but even from a fact-finding point of view there is no probable cause. There has to be more than mere verbal accusation. There has to be evidence to support it.

-o0o-

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s Interview
13 December 2007

On the JCPC hearing on the sale of PNOC-EDC

We are on the verge of losing our patience because the issue simply is how much the EDC has contributed to the national treasury. We already know how much it was sold for: some P58 billion. If it (EDC) contributed more than that to the national treasury, then why sell it? Because then it would be able to make more money than it is being sold for in the very near future. They (the government panel) cannot give us a ballpark figure. These are huge amounts of money and we are entitled to an explanation why we are selling a profitable government enterprise.

During the time of President Aquino, the sales of government assets were confined only to those that were non-performing assets or government corporations that were losing money. We never sold any profit-making assets because if we sold it to a private owner he would pay today and we would have today the amount that he paid, but the entire revenue stream or the entire potential earnings of the enterprise would have absolutely stopped. It would be like looking only at the short-term but not at the long-term. It would be trading instant gratification for future security.

(But) the most basic problem is why they didn’t inform us that they were selling it. All the while we thought that just trying to prepare for the sale of certain assets of the EDC like its geothermal fields and steam sales agreements. We didn’t have any inkling that they were selling sixty percent of EDC which would make government lose control of a geothermal firm that is considered one of the first in the whole world. We are number one in steam sales technology and number two in steam sales production. Now PNOC-EDC, through the chair of the Privatization Council (the Finance Secretary) and the president of PNOC-EDC himself, wants to sell this valuable asset for what?

Plus, I have a personal concern on why did the winning bidder, Red Vulcan, bid P 58.5 billion, which is P13.5 billion higher than the floor price. In other words, the Privatization Council and PNOC-EDC undervalued the valuable assets of our government. Even the buyer himself admitted that the floor price was an undervalue of the asset. Why make it easy to sell something that is making money? Their argument there is very weak, and that is that now it (EDC) is in its peak price and we will never be able to sell it in the same amount again. How did they know that? Do they have any fact-based data to support their argument?

In the case of the JCPC, we have one particular instance in the past when, owing to the intervention of a public official, a sale that has already taken place, was cancelled or aborted… it turned out that the cancellation of the government asset sale, I’m talking about Malampaya EC, was correct because eventually the price of oil rose from $30/barrel to $100/barrel, so the income from Malampaya rose as well. If we have not stopped that sale at that time, we would have lost a valuable asset forever, and it is now making a lot of money for the government. That is more or less the same situation as EDC.

Can the JCPC still block the sale?

[The sale] has not yet been implemented. In a sense it has been consummated because the winning bidder has been announced, and was able to make full payment in cash. The next thing that should happen is that it should now take over control of EDC. But not if the JCPC can help it. If we need to go to court, then we will go court. But first we will give the Secretary of Finance and the PNOC President, the two officers responsible for the sale, an opportunity to explain themselves. What I am doing here is I’m making a compilation of all the questions that were raised today and I will give them until next week to give me a specific answer for each question. They were saying this morning that they don’t have the exact figures. We find that hard to believe. You would have at least some rounded or ballpark figures in your head if you are dealing with an amount as big as P 168 billion.

The power of the JCPC is to monitor the privatization of the power industry and to ensure compliance of the Epira. Epira provides that we must optimize the value of our assets that are being sold. If we find that the value has not optimized and we therefore reach the conclusion that the law has not been followed, we would have good legal grounds for ordering them to withdraw their approval, just as they did in Malampaya.

You insinuated earlier that somebody must have received commissions and kickbacks

It cannot be helped because these people could at least have given the senators and the congressmen the basic courtesy of notice. Sa tingin ko may kumita dito. Bakit mo ililihim kung wala kang itinatago? Napag-usapan na ito sa JCPC noon pa. Sinabi namin na huwag na nating ibenta ang shares of stock o control ng EDC, ibenta na lang natin ang mga assets niya. Nagulat na lang kaming lahat na ibebenta na pala. That is mainly the burden of the JCPC. We are trying to understand why they didn’t give us due notice and wait for us. What is the rush, since the sale price of P58.5 billion is meant to go only to make up for the budget deficit. That is not the function of the Privatization Council or the Department of Finance.

They could not even answer the question [how much the government lost in the sale of EDC]. I want to know how much has EDC given to the national treasury. At first they said P71 billion. Kita mo na: binenta natin ng P58 billion ang kumikita ng P71 billion. Tapos ang sabi nila “ Mali pala kami, meron pa pala kaming ide-deduct diyan.” Ang mga kumisyon daw ng mga broker at underwriter sa kanilang benta. Hindi raw kumpleto ang listahan nila. Iyon na nga ang problema, may mga kumikita nang hindi alam ng publiko.

On citing Transco President Arthur Aguilar for contempt

I cited him for contempt because pinag-uusapan dito kung maayos ang pagbenta ng Transco. Biro mo, presidente siya ng Transco hindi siya dumating, nagpadala lang ng vice president niya dahil nagpreside daw siya ng nationwide bidding ng mga subordinate at regional managers niya. Pinag-uusapan ang P160 billion ng gobyerno dito, at mas gusto niya na makihalubilo sa mga subordinates niya. He is not giving the JCPC the proper courtesy of at least his physical appearance.

I gave him 3 days to file a motion for reconsideration, but I have already said that we will not find it acceptable that he explains himself by merely saying that “I am sorry but I am presiding over a nationwide conference.” E di magpa-preside siya ng ibang tao at bumalik siya ng hapon. Anong deperensya? Anong problema? But we will ask him to explain in writing what the details of (the sale of) Transco are.

My reading of the JCPC law is that we can detain or imprison him for less than one year, and we can impose a fine of less than P50,000.

On Ibazeta’s defense on charges of conflict of interest over the sale of Transco

Myself as chair and Rep. Arroyo as co-chair the explanation to be reasonable and therefore valid. He (Ibazeta) is saying that “There is no conflict of interest. I am chair of a terminal services corporation and we are here dealing with the power sector, so I don’t see any conflict between terminal services and the power sector.” Besides, he inhibited himself from the bidding process because of the ethical question that has been raised. Unless there is further evidence, we find that he has acquitted himself successfully on the charge of conflict of interest. Whether there is any irregularity in the bidding process itself or in the projected dire consequences of the sale to this winning bidder, that will be taken up by another committee.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview
12 December 2007

On the survey results that President Arroyo is the most corrupt Philippine president

I am filing a resolution, possibly by tomorrow morning, to investigate not only the particular survey firm but all major survey firms that have their results published in the media. I would like to know 1) who pays for these surveys. I am not buying to the claim that these surveys are not commissioned. Who is funding them? You cannot just conduct a professional scientific survey without funding. So how come these survey firms claim that they are not commissioned? Do you really mean to tell me that a private commercial company, meaning to say a profit company will take the bother and expense of taking a survey and losing money for the effort just to gain a headline? That does not make business sense.

And 2) I am not about to be inveigled to the belief that these survey results are accurate. Apart from the usual criticisms of accuracy of surveys, I don’t that any right-minded scientific professional survey firm will conduct a one-sided survey. There will always be a positive part of the survey. For example, it may ask “Who is the most corrupt president?” but it should ask also “Who do you think is the most successful economically among the presidents we’ve had?”

My unconfirmed report is that a member of the opposition commissioned the survey and was able to convince a major daily to use it as a banner headline. This is not a coincidence. Also, I would like to know how these survey firms support themselves, for normally it by soliciting patrons from the business world, but generally they do not concentrate on politics. In other countries you will find that survey firms are active only during actual campaigns, and they try as much as possible to objective, that is to say present two sides to issue so that they can elicit credibility. I know for a fact, as a public official and as an ordinary citizen, that these surveys are not highly thought of precisely because they are so biased in their reporting.

There is a specific name circulating among administration allies. We were exchanging news and information this morning in the CA hearing. Word does get around; you cannot keep this under wraps. Someone will always tell who was the person who was behind a certain survey.

All you have to do is sit and think for one second: who is the right-minded person who will go out of his way to conduct a scientifically-accepted survey with all the expense it incurs without being paid for it? Possibly the churches, whose motives will not be suspect. Or the academics, because they are known to do these foolhardy ventures (in a business sense). Otherwise, a commercial company will not undertake this kind of non-profit activity.

I am outraged as an ordinary reader or part of the audience that I should be presented with biased and one-sided news.

Could he/she be a former president?

This survey firm has always been associated with a former president. I would not say that there is a direct connection between that former president and this firm. I do know however that there is an opposition figure who commissioned the survey and paid the firm… He is very slippery. It (the survey) does serve the purpose of the opposition to put President Arroyo down.

On the Powercom hearing tomorrow

At the hearing of the JCPC tomorrow, we will look into 1) the explanation for the auction and sale of the EDC, and its possible illegality; 2) the accusations hurled by the opposition against the validity of the auction to the successful bidder of Transco; and 3) the accusations recently made by a congressman of alleged overpricing of coal on the part of NAPOCOR.

-o0o-

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview
11 December 2007

On the revival of the Cha-Cha in the Lower House

Theirs is no point resurrecting the dead. Why try and revive it? What is the reason for changing the Constitution at this particular time? Here in the Senate, we are all engaged in trying to pass the national budget this afternoon or at least this week. And in the Powercom, we have a series of scandals. In fact, as Chair of the JCPC, I am getting terminal headaches from all these scandals: the sale of the EDC shares of stock rather than just its geothermal fields packaged with steam sales agreement; the sale of Transco, which have been attacked by certain opposition senators because of the alleged conflict of interest with the PSALM president; and, most recently, the privilege speech of a congressman alleging that NAPOCOR has paid for coal that was grossly overcharged, and that overpayment will of course be reflected in next year’s electricity rates.

I want to know the following things about charter change:

1. Is there a necessity?
   
2. What are the benefits to be gained from it?
   
3. How practical is the proposal?
   

In all three issues, I submit that the answer is in the negative.

What maybe the motives behind this?

I don’t really know, except maybe if the House of Representatives just wants to prove to President Arroyo, since her recent altercation with the leadership of the House, that it still has some weight and cannot just be kicked around by the executive branch of government. There is always two countervailing forces that the House can fall back on whenever it feels that they are not getting their due: 1) the power to impeach, and 2) the power to initiate charter change.

This is all part of the power game, which is really very annoying and very tiring. We have so many priority bills. This morning at the LEDAC, we couldn’t even decide among ourselves which four or six bills to pass before Christmas break, and which fourteen or fifteen bills to pass before the first semester. And then we have all these extraneous political noise going on.

On the composition of the Ethics Committee as principal obstacle from hearing the resolution to suspend or expel Sen. Trillanes

Apparently, the committee has not yet been organized. This is perfectly understandable because no senator wants to sit in judgment over his or her own colleague. Nobody wants to be chair of the Ethics Committee and nobody wants to be a member. That’s the problem: nobody wants to pass judgment, because if you don’t judge anything, then you don’t get into trouble over anything. My contention is that we have a power granted to the Senate not only by the Rules of the Senate but by the Constitution itself. And we cannot simply abnegate this power simply by non-action. Our inaction or our silence, as provided by the Civil Code and in the Penal Code, will be interpreted as consent. In love, sex, the Civil Code, the Penal Code, and the actions of the Senate, silence means consent.

-o0o-

FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC )
OF THE PHILIPPINES )
First Regular Session )

SENATE

P.S.R. No. 228


Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago


URGENT RESOLUTION
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT IT IS AN UNPARLIAMENTARY ACT FOR A SENATOR TO LEAD AN ATTEMPTED COUP D’ETAT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT,
AND CALLING FOR HIS PROPER PUNISHMENT

WHEREAS, on 29 November 2007, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who is detained and under trial on a charge of coup d’etat, walked out of a Makati courtroom and stormed into a hotel where he participated in the reading of a prepared seditious statement calling not only for the President to resign, but also for the public, in effect, to compel her to leave office;

WHEREAS, the Rules of the Senate, Rule 34, Section 97, provides:

SEC. 97. Upon the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the Senate may punish any Member for disorderly behavior and, with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the entire membership, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) calendar days.

WHEREAS, the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, provides:

SEC. 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State.

WHEREAS, this provision means that the President, as commander-in-chief, is supreme not only over the military, but also over its rogue elements. Furthermore, the provision that the AFP is the protector of the people is not meant to authorize any of the rogue military to stage a coup d’etat, but is intended to emphasize the defense of the country from foreign attack;

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges, should meet immediately and recommend the proper punishment for Senator Trillanes for disorderly behavior and unparliamentary acts and language, including if necessary, his suspension or expulsion from the Senate.

Adopted,


                                                                                                                         (Sgd.)

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Senator wants Trillanes expelled from Senate

From Inquirer.net
First posted 04:34:01 (Mla time) December 01, 2007  

MANILA, Philippines -- Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago is preparing to ask the Senate to reprimand or even expel Senator Antonio Trillanes IV for leading a siege on a hotel in the Makati business district Thursday.

In a resolution that she plans to submit for action on Monday, Santiago said: “The Senate committee on ethics and privileges should meet immediately and recommend the proper punishment for Senator Trillanes for disorderly behavior and unparliamentary acts and language, including, if necessary, his suspension or expulsion from the Senate.”

The ethics committee is chaired by Sen. Pia Cayetano.

Santiago said she believed that Trillanes’ acts on Thursday had been planned: “He participated in the reading of a prepared seditious statement calling not only for the President to resign, but also for the public, in effect, to compel her to leave office.”

The Senate’s rules allow punishment of any of its members for disorderly behavior upon the recommendation of the ethics committee, as long as this is concurred in by two-thirds of the members of the chamber, said Santiago, a staunch ally of President Gloria Macaagal-Arroyo, whom she is joining in a trip to London and Spain this Saturday night.

But she conceded that penalizing Trillanes would be difficult, considering that his oppositionist allies accounted for the majority in the Senate.

Before Thursday, Trillanes had been in detention on a coup d’état charge for his role in a 2003 military mutiny. He has yet to attend a session at the Senate since his election last May.

Premature

Sen. Pia Cayetano said that while her committee was bound to act on Santiago’s resolution, any Senate action on Trillanes would be “premature” because his cases were still pending in court.

She cited the case of former congressman Romeo Jalosjos, who was expelled from the House of Representatives only after the Supreme Court had upheld his conviction for rape.

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. concurred with Cayetano, saying: “Trillanes is innocent of the crimes until he is convicted. He has to be convicted first before he is punished. He should not be prejudged before he is convicted.”

Senate President Manuel Villar said his position was that the chamber should tread carefully in disciplining one of its own.

He said he doubted whether Trillanes could be expelled, especially with the opposition in control of the Senate.

Send a clear message

Whether the Senate reprimands, suspends or expels Trillanes, Santiago said it was important that the Senate would send a clear message to the public that it was not tolerating crimes committed by a senator.

She said some opposition senators who were also lawyers like herself were most likely as “annoyed and offended” by Trillanes’ actions.

“Nagdudunung-dunungan kasi’ [He’s trying to look intelligent]. He is interpreting the Constitution as a layman, which should not be because you need four years to have the skill to interpret it,” she said.

-o0o-