Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said it should be Congress acting as a constituent assembly, and not a constitutional convention, which should be authorized to amend the Constitution.

This developed a day after the holding of nationwide barangay consultative assemblies, which Santiago described as "a failed exercise for lack of preparation."

"If at all, the Constitution should only be amended in part, and not revised as a whole. To make sure there is no outright revision, it should be Congress that should act as a constituent assembly," she said.

Santiago said that because of the economic crisis and the problem of poverty, it might be necessary to amend the charter, but only with respect to provisions on the economy.

"Charter change should be limited to economic provisions. Political provisions should be left untouched to prevent partisanship," she said.

Santiago said among the economic proposals that should be considered are land ownership by aliens, higher foreign equity in firms exploiting natural resources, and exemption of economic policy from judicial review.

She said that among the political proposals which should be barred are the change from presidential to parliamentary system, and the lifting of term limits.

"Congress acting as a constituent assembly has the power to limit the constitutional agenda. By contrast, a constitutional convention is independent of any other branch of government and would be free to review the entire charter," she said.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that "amendment" and "revision" are different, because "amendment" refers only to certain provisions, while "revision" refers to the entire charter.

"Congress can limit itself to amendment only, but a constitutional convention has no limits and can engage in an entire revision," she said.

Santiago said it is "opportunistic" for the Lakas party to oppose a parliamentary system, simply because it would have less chances of winning the elections.

"Both the Lakas and Lammp parties are equally guilty of partisanship on the charter change issue. That’s why amendments should be confined to economic issues only," she said.

Santiago, who was in Dumaguete and Cebu cities last Monday, said that the barangay consultative assemblies were "a failure," because of lack of information.

"Charter change is too vital an issue to be left to the barangays. It should be handled by Congress," she said.

Santiago said it would be cheaper for Congress to act as a constituent assembly, because it would cost at least P1 billion to call a constitutional convention.

"The Senate only has the power to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation. Thus, a Senate hearing is limited in scope," she said.

Santiago said that a Senate hearing does not "afford full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to test for credibility."

She also said that the report of the Senate committee which holds the hearings would only be recommendatory in nature, and would have "no legal binding effect as an adjudication of the true ownership of the Marcos wealth."

"Is Imelda telling the whole truth? We will not be able to tell because she will not be properly cross-examined," the senator said.

Santiago also said that the ultimate goal of a Senate hearing would be to draft a new anti-dummy law and possible amendments to the anti-graft law.

"Certainly Mrs. Marcos should be encouraged to tell the whole truth. But a Senate hearing would not be the best forum," she said.

Santiago said that the presidential commission which she proposes should be composed "of retired Supreme Court justices known for their honesty and competence like Justice Ameurfina Melencio Herrera and Justice Teodoro Padilla."

The senator made the proposal on the eve of the first Senate hearing on the Marcos wealth scheduled for Wednesday.

Santiago spoke at the Luzon Colleges in Dagupan City, Pangasinan.

Santiago will deliver the sponsorship speech at the last plenary session of the Commission on Appointments on Tuesday December 22.

Under CA rules, during the last session prior to an adjournment of Congress, members are prohibited from filing a motion to suspend action, meaning that Gonzalez’ confirmation next week is assured.

At the committee hearing last Thursday, Santiago said the opposition to Gonzalez filed by three separate oppositors should be disregarded because they did not touch upon his honesty, competence, or efficiency.

The first opposition, filed by the Decena couple, was based on the death of their daughter during a La Salle fair, when Gonzalez was La Salle head.

The second opposition, filed by former National Archives director Ricardo Manapat, was based on the alleged illegality of a contract between that agency and a group of Spanish historians who have been authorized to microfilm national archives records.

The third opposition filed by Manuel Arejola was based on the population values program of the DECS, which Arejola’s group opposes.

"The Decena case has already been filed in court, while the Manapat case has already been filed with the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption. This confirmation hearing is not the proper forum to ventilate those cases," Santiago said.

But it was for oppositor Arejola that Santiago reserved her full magisterial judgment.

The former RTC judge virtually delivered a lecture on the purpose of a confirmation hearing, and the proper grounds for an opposition.

"A confirmation hearing is meant only to test the nominee’s qualifications for public office, namely, his honesty, competence, and efficiency. It is not meant to harass or humiliate the nominee," she said.

Santiago rebuked Arejola and Manapat for filing written oppositions meant to force Gonzalez to adopt the policies espoused by the oppositors.

‘It is improper and unacceptable to use a written opposition as a means of intimidating a cabinet member to adopt a certain position on a policy issue. That would constitute the crime of coercion," Santiago said.

Santiago was apparently peeved that Arejola tried to lecture the committee on what he views as a correct education program.

"Sir, you are here only by tolerance of this committee. Outside of that tolerance, you have absolutely no right under law to use this forum to inflict your opinions on this committee," Santiago lectured.

The education committee under Santiago held a total of four hearings on the Gonzalez nomination.

Santiago, a former RTC judge, was noticeably restrained during the hearings, but apparently decided last Thursday that enough was enough. She delivered her "lecture" in a scholarly tone.

Last Thursday’s hearing, like the others before it, was attended by a big crowd of educators and the religious, who wanted to show moral support for Gonzalez.

At one point, Santiago directed the audience to refrain from booing Arejola, who was clearly unpopular because of his insulting language directed at Gonzalez.

"Sir, under constitutional law your language is objectionable because it constitutes ‘fighting words.’ If you were outside of this hall, Mr. Gonzalez would be justified in hitting you," said Santiago, who is a constitutional law expert.

"As an Asian legislator, I favor Pres. Clinton’s continued stay in power, because this will ensure a stable US military presence in Asia. His removal might impact security in the Asian region," she warned.

However, Santiago also said that she favors censure, because "it would send the right moral message around the world."

Santiago said that the US Senate will likely reject removal, and instead apply censure as alternative punishment.

"The 100 senators who will act as a jury will vote along party lines, and therefore it will be virtually impossible to muster a 2/3 majority needed to convict and remove Pres. Clinton," she said.

Santiago said that although the Republicans have a 55-45 edge in the Senate, they would still need 12 Democrats to join them in order for Clinton to be removed.

"Different rules apply to the respondent on the one hand, and to an ordinary witness on the other hand. Mrs. Marcos is herself the respondent, and not a mere witness. She has the right to refuse to take the witness stand," said Santiago, a former RTC judge.

Santiago cited the case of Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767, decided in 1991.

In the Bengzon case, the Supreme Court held: "The Court holds that, under the facts, including the circumstance that petitioners are presently impleaded as defendants in a case before the Sandiganbayan, which involves issues intimately related to the Committee, the respondent Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is hereby enjoined from compelling the petitioners and intervenor to testify before it and produce evidence at the said inquiry."

Santiago said that the Bengzon ruling is the "definitive interpretation" of the constitutional prohibition which provides: "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

Santiago said the Senate has no jurisdiction over Mrs. Marcos.

"It is highly likely that the Senate has no jurisdiction over Mrs. Marcos, because she is at present impleaded as a defendant in 13 criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan. Those cases involve issues intimately related to the subject of the Blue Ribbon hearing," she said.

Santiago said that the Senate hearing is not "in aid of legislation," because the same issues are already pending before a court.

She pointed out that in the Bengzon case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Blue Ribbon Committee could not compel Bengzon to testify, because he was already charged as a defendant in a case pending in the Sandiganbayan.

"If a case has already been filed in court against Imelda Marcos, then the inquiry is not in aid of legislation and can be properly enjoined by the Supreme Court," she said.