ON NOGRALES THE RESOLUTION

If the House of Representatives passes the Nograles resolution by mere majority vote, then it will be unconstitutional. We are not allowed to conflate an ordinary bill with a charter change resolution. There is simply no correspondence between the two measures.

If the Nograles resolution is limited to economic provisions, then it is only an amendment, and not a revision. An amendment is limited only to specific provisions. Revision covers the entire Constitution.

But whether amendment or revision, the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of Congress. Any vote less than three-fourths is unconstitutional. For example, to pass a charter change resolution in the same way as an ordinary bill – by mere majority vote – is unconstitutional.

The reason for this is that the power of charter change is NOT part of the legislative power of Congress. Instead, the power of charter change is part of the inherent power of the people, who have spoken through the Constitution.

The power of Congress to pass laws is derived from its legislative power. By contrast, the power of Congress on charter change is derived from the Constitution. This difference was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the 1967 case of Gonzales v. Comelec.

The Constitution provides for charter change under Article 17 entitled “Amendments of Revisions.” The Constitution does not include charter change under Article 6 entitled “Legislative Department.” This is textual proof that a charter change resolution should not be treated like an ordinary bill. It would be like comparing a dilis to a whale.

The Nograles resolution, even if it follows the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. By requiring only a majority vote, it contravenes the constitutional provision that charter change should pass by a three-fourths vote.

Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview - 13 April 2009

On the VFA

I have called for a hearing on the proposal which seems to be mounting to terminate the VFA. Under its own terms, the VFA can be terminated by either the Philippines or the US for any or no reason, and the termination will be effective after notice to the other party within six months. We don’t need a reason. The real reason is, I believe, that after ten years of operation in our country, the VFA is working more harm than good to the national interest. It is acting as a lightning rod for the enemies of the US , and we are being used as a monitoring station by the US Armed Forces in its so-called ‘war on terror’. According to President Obama there is no more ‘war on terror’ and therefore there is no need for the Americans to stay here.

On the part of the Philippines , what we got was used military equipment—in other words, American junk. I have read the papers this morning and I have discovered that the commitment to give us their used military equipment has been dangled before the Philippine government since the early 1950’s. So every time they want something from the Philippines , they will always offer the same deal. If we let them do something in our territory, they will give us their used military junk. I don’t think that it is consonant with the worldview of the new president, particularly since he has spent his childhood in Indonesia which is one of the closest and most analogous neighboring countries to ours. Therefore I think we should give President Arroyo more resources with which to face up with the US which tends to become arrogant every time it is able to get something out of the Philippines for nothing.

On charter change

In addition, I think the moment the House of Representatives passes the so-called charter change resolution, immediately I, and definitely certain other senators, will rush to the Senate to challenge the House resolution on a petition for certiorari, for example. It is their view that when the Constitution provides that a constituent assembly, composed of members of the Congress sits down to change the Charter, the legislative vote should be three-fourths of the votes of the senators sitting down with the House members—and therefore counted as an ordinary House member—that is for me a completely unacceptable view of our Constitution.

Under the doctrine of necessary implication, you read into the statute whatever is necessary in order to effectuate it. Our Constitution provides for a bicameral Congress, and therefore voting should always be bicameral. It can be held at the same time, but the House would vote among itself, and the Senate should vote among itself.

And even if we are outvoted, I believe that the Filipino voters will never approve in a plebiscite any charter change that has been passed only by the vote of the House counting the vote of the Senate together with itself. That will simply not be acceptable to the Filipino public because the Filipino voter is very jealous of his prerogative to cast a vote in favor of his president.

If we change to the parliamentary system, they will not personally vote for their prime minister, but instead surrender their vote for the prime minister and delegate it to the member of parliament of his district. The vote is the only time the voter asserts his authority in a flawed democracy like ours. Even in the case of the stupid corrupt voter, at least it gives him the opportunity to make money out of the politician that is stealing money anyway in the last three or six years. So they will never agree to the proposal to take away this power from themselves. That is the problem.

Of course there are many arguments in favor of a parliamentary system, but basically we have no background in this process because we were colonized by the Americans like other Southeast Asian country. Therefore, I feel that this will turn, like all great political questions, into a great judicial question. The issue is whether the Arroyo appointees will feel bound to vote in a partisan fashion just to support the president who appointed them to office. I don’t think so.

Is PGMA looking for a term extension?

I think she will want more to leave a good name for herself. As you know, she is faltering in the popularity surveys, and for her to be more than proactive in pushing for a shift to a parliamentary system might spell her doom. So she will have to take this in proper perspective. She will not only be fighting for her political life, but also her reputation in history.

Those congressmen are thinking that they can sell their votes to the highest bidder once they turn themselves into parliament. There will be a campaign among themselves on who will be elected prime minister. What will happen is that the ‘prime-ministerables’ will be trying to buy the rest of the members of parliament. How much will each candidate for prime minister will be willing to pay for each member of parliament? Every member of parliament will be for sale whether actually he or she is not. That is how every candidate for prime minister will view their colleague. The money used to be spent to buy the Filipino voter will now be concentrated on some three hundred people. You want to be a gazillionaire? Run for member of parliament.

Is there enough time for charter change?

No, definitely there is no more time left. Unless you run a gravy train. And I just don’t think that the Filipino is in the mood to go along the shenanigans of corrupt politicians. Why do we have to change right now? Why can’t we change it on, like, 2011 or some other period of time? Why do we have to do it right now? Are we sinking into the Pacific Ocean ? Are we gasping for breath? There is no defense on the question of necessity. Why now? Why so urgent?

Are the congressmen looking for a term extension?

A politician is always a hopeless optimist. He is always an apostle of hope. He is always hoping that things will turn out for the best. Even if they will say right now that there will be no term extensions, they are hoping that once the resolution is passed for charter change, things will somehow change and they can still remain in office. Otherwise they will not be members of the House. You have to be inconceivably optimistic to be a member of the House of Representatives.

On the status of the WB hearings

It was clear that there was no evidence as sanctioned by the Rules of Court. I think that those who won’t agree on how I conducted the proceedings are hoping that they can file the same resolution and have it assigned to another committee, otherwise engage in forum-shopping. At that point, I will put my foot down; I’m going to the Supreme Court and say you can’t do this. In the first place, the legislative committee of the Senate is not the NBI or the office of the fiscal. We are not supposed to be conducting preliminary investigations of criminal cases. We are conducting investigations in aid of legislation. And since the WB doesn’t even want to share any information with us, there is no modicum or scintilla of evidence on which to base any adverse statement against the First Gentleman.

Let the Supreme Court rule on whether if a minority of the Senate thinks that it did not get the political partisan results it was hoping for, it can go and refer the same subject matter to another committee so that they can get the result it wants in terms of political mileage. Are we allowed under the Constitution to do this? The Rules of the Senate provides that the Rules of Procedure will not be strictly followed during legislative investigations except when a substantive right of the accused is involved. A substantive right is any right protected and defined under the Constitution, and one of these substantive rights is the right to be presumed innocent.

Another committee can hold another investigation on another aspect, but you have to examine the process. If it simply results in placing the First Gentleman on the dock again, I will resent it as a lawyer.

I will file a committee report as soon as possible. I’ll simply say that there is no evidence pursuant to the Rules of Court, and my basis will be there is a substantive right involved, and under our own rules, we have to apply the strict procedural rules as provided by the Rules of Court.

SENATE GIRDS FOR CHACHA SHOWDOWN

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a leading constitutional law expert, said that when the House of Representatives passes a resolution for charter change, immediately the Senate will file a petition in the Supreme Court to compel a separate Senate vote on the resolution.

“The Constitution requires a vote of three-fourths of all the members of Congress. The two chambers should vote at the same time, but should vote separately. This is the doctrine of necessary implication, because Congress is a bicameral body,” she said.

Santiago said that in Asia, the Philippines is one of several countries that follow the US presidential system, including Indonesia, South Korea, and Taiwan; but only Japan follows the parliamentary system.

She said that if a constituent assembly votes to change over to a parliamentary system, the voter would refuse to ratify it in a plebiscite.

“The Filipino is jealous of his personal vote in a presidential election. He will not surrender it to members of parliament, who would have the sole power to elect the prime minister,” she said.

Santiago said that the present presidential system guarantees that most important decisions are made by a broad majority, unlike a parliamentary system where a minority group could impose its will on the nation.

“The only thing you can say in favor of a parliamentary system is that you can avoid a deadlock between the President and Congress. A parliamentary system avoids legislative paralysis, but the downside is dominance by the administration party,” she said.

“In any event, the time left is too short. Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, we would all have to wait. At this time, charter change is not a political but a judicial question,” she said.

MIRIAM SEES CHACHA NEXT YEAR, IF . . .

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that the Supreme Court holds the key to whether the charter change process will start next year.

“In general, the House of Representatives is in favor of charter change, while the Senate opposes. Which of these chambers will prevail will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court,” she said.

Santiago was guest speaker yesterday at Our Lady of Fatima University in Valenzuela City.

Santiago said that the House and the Senate are directly opposed on the issue on how to compute how many votes will be needed to convert Congress into a constituent assembly.

Santiago said the Constitution provides that it can be amended by ¾ votes of the Congress, and the issue is how to compute the ¾ votes.

“The House position is that first we should compute the total number of Congress members, which is 261 votes in all. If so, then only 195 votes are needed to change the charter,” she said.

Santiago said that the Senate objects to the House position, because it would mean that a senator has just the same vote as a representative, and because there are more representatives, the House will be able to outvote the Senate.

“By contrast, the Senate position is that charter change needs ¾ of the House, meaning 178 votes; plus ¾ of the Senate, meaning 17 votes,” she said.

Santiago said that even former Supreme Court justices and constitutional convention delegates are divided on the answer to this issue.

“The authoritative answer to this paramount threshold question can only be given by the Supreme Court,” she said.

Santiago said that as a constitutional law professor, in general she opposes any charter change, unless there are compelling reasons.

“One compelling reason for charter change is the imperative necessity to change the nationalistic provisions, in order that the Philippines can be globally competitive,” she said.

Santiago noted that many foreign firms do not want to invest in the Philippines , because the Constitution only allows them minority control of their own corporations.

“The second reason for charter change is the necessity to change from a unitary to a federal form of government, in order to solve the long-standing issue of Muslim separatism,” she said.

Santiago said that in a federal system, as in the US , each state is a virtual state within a state, resulting in a “system of dual sovereignty.”

“But we have to be extremely careful that in a federal system, the Constitution shall prohibit absolutely any right of secession. The absence of such a prohibition might cause a civil war, as it did in the US ,” she said.

13 February 2008

MIRIAM: CHACHA BID “RADIOACTIVE”

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that she is “deeply skeptical” about the proposed charter change for shifting to a federal system, describing it as “a radioactive minefield.”

Santiago said that since there is no genuine public clamor, but only a clamor from certain local government officials, the Supreme Court will “most likely” declare the new chacha initiative unconstitutional.

Santiago cited the 1997 case of Defensor Santiago v. Comelec, and the 2006 case of Raul Lambino vs. Comelec, where the Supreme Court struck down administration efforts to change the charter.

“The chacha political landscape is dotted with landmines set to explode. In other words, it raises crucial political issues which are likely to explode in the face of those who advocate it,” she said.

The senator added: “The DILG under Sec. Puno should stop writing screen plays for their chacha spectacular, which have long been unmasked as sycophantic efforts to earn brownie points with the President.”

Santiago listed the objectionable features of the proposal, as follows:

• It will “most probably” include a provision for holdover of elected officials beyond their fixed terms of office.

“That would immediately and automatically prove lethal to chacha. The voters have developed chacha fatigue, in addition to scandal fatigue, and people power fatigue,” she said.

If the intent is to solve the Muslim problem in Mindanao , it is redundant, because Muslim leaders have already rejected federalism as a response to their demands.

• It is artificial to the Philippines , because federalism in other countries is driven by diversity in governments and cultures, particularly ethnic majorities which does not apply in the same degree to the Philippines.
  

“The Philippines is a tiny archipelago that has always been homogeneous, except for certain Muslim provinces. Federalism works only for regions or states that are heterogeneous,” she said.

• Federalism is anachronistic. It has succeeded only in some 20 states of the world, and it failed in some cases like East Africa, the Caribbean, and the USSR .
  

• The proponents do not specify what form of government, whether presidential or parliamentary, shall be observed under the proposed federal system.
  

• The danger of secession is greater, because each province or regional grouping is considered co-equal to every other, and enjoys greater autonomy from the national government, which retains power only over foreign affairs, defense, and immigration.
  

-End-

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-

Press Release

29 March 2007
MIRIAM RANKS SENATORIABLES BY EDUCATION
Appeared in the 30 March 2007 issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who rose to popularity partly on the basis of her IQ jokes against politicians, urged voters to choose senatorial candidates on the basis of number of years spent in college.

“The longer the candidate stayed in college, presumably the better prepared that candidate is to face policy issues in the Senate,” she said.

The feisty senator released to media a list of senatoriables, ranked by number of years spent in college.

“Sadly, among the candidates, there are no honor graduates from the University of the Philippines law school, which used to be a hallmark of the Senate in the past,” said Santiago who, with Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, is one of only two UP law honor graduates in the present Senate.

Santiago herself graduated twice with honors from the University of the Philippines, and finished her law doctorate at the University of Michigan, as a DeWitt Fellow and a Barbour Scholar.

Santiago said her list of educated senators is headed by candidates who spent some 10 years in college, each of whom finished law in UP and a master’s degree in the US.

The three highest educated are: Edgardo Angara, Master of Laws, University of Michigan; Francis Escudero, Master of Laws, Georgetown University; and Francis Pangilinan, Master of Public Administration, Harvard University.

The candidates who finished 10 years are followed by candidates who finished nine years in college, of which there are four: Joker Arroyo, Bachelor of Laws, UP; Jamalul Kiram III, Bachelor of Laws, MLQU; Alan Cayetano, Bachelor of Laws, Ateneo University; and Aquilino Pimentel III, Bachelor of Laws, UP.

The next category consists of the candidates who did five years of college, by finishing a bachelor’s course, followed by a master’s degree, of which there are seven candidates: Michael Defensor, Master in Public Administration, UP; Teresa Oreta, Master of National Security Administration, National Defense College of the Philippines; Ralph Recto, Master in Public Administration, UP; Loren Legarda, Master in National Security Administration, NDCP; Sonia Roco, Master in Communication Arts, Ateneo University; Antonio Trillanes III, Master in Public Administration, UP; and Manuel Villar, Jr., Master in Business Administration, UP.

The greater majority come last in the list because they finished a bachelor’s degree, or some four years of college, of which there are 10 candidates: Vicente Magsaysay, BS Commerce, Letran College; Cesar Montano, BS Commerce, Letran College; Prospero Pichay, BS Commerce, De La Salle University; Luis Singson, BS Commerce, Letran College; Vicente Sotto III, AB English, Letran College; Juan Miguel Zubiri, BS Agricultural Management, UP Los Baños; Benigno Aquino III, BS Economics, Ateneo University; Anna Dominique Coseteng, AB Journalism, St. Louis University; Panfilo Lacson, BS, Philippine Military Academy; and John Osmeña, BS Mechanical Engineering, San Carlos University.

Santiago said her list does not consider short courses, because usually they involve less than a year in college, adding that in her own resume she describes as “postdoctoral studies” short courses that she has taken at Oxford, Harvard, Stanford, University of California in Berkley, the Academy of Public International Law at The Hague, Holland, etc.

The senator also qualified her list by pointing out that some candidates’ resumes do not show if they finished the required thesis for graduate school, or merely finished the academic units required, in which case they are only candidates for the graduate degree.

“I’m not even sure if some candidates actually received their bachelor’s degrees, or merely took some courses and then dropped out from college,” said the senator.
Santiago added that if there will be charter change this year, she will propose a minimum educational requirement for all elective candidates for public office, beginning with the President, down to barangay chair.

-o0o-

Transcript of Interview with Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago

13 December 2006

On Smith’s custody

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Con-Con

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

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

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

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

-o0o-

Press Statement

7 December 2006

WHY I DID NOT SIGN THE RESOLUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

-o0o-

Breaking News

7 November 2006

MIRIAM WILL ASSUME CJ POST AFTER CHA-CHA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who has been nominated for Supreme Court Chief Justice, said that if recommended and appointed, she will assume office, only after the Supreme Court has decided the charter change issue.

“I don’t want to cause embarrassment to President Arroyo by participating in the court deliberations on the charter change issue, which will certainly be brought before the Supreme Court. If I vote in favor of charter change, that might provoke a storm of controversy because of my political association with the appointing power,” Santiago said.

The senator said she was unable to talk to President Arroyo at the meeting of the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) yesterday (Tuesday), for lack of time.

“The President went into overtime at another prior meeting and was about half an hour late opening the LEDAC meeting. So there was no chance for a talk before the meeting,” Santiago said.

The senator said that after President Arroyo momentarily left the room, Santiago, Sen. Flavier, and Sen. Pangilinan also left, to prepare for the afternoon Senate session.

“Although cha-cha was not on the LEDAC agenda, a spirited and lengthy debate ensued after the President called on Rep. Constantino Jaraula to report on the status of the Senate-House talks on cha-cha. It was evident that there are manifold and strongly held views among the President’s allies. In any event, my view is that this political issue will eventually morph into a judicial issue,” Santiago said.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said she declined to participate in the LEDAC cha-cha debate, because the only agency worth persuading is the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.

“There was no sense in proselytizing among the converted,” Santiago said.

-o0o-