Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview

After the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations hearing on the ASEAN Charter

The Committee on foreign affairs has decided to circulate a committee report for signature by the members recommending Senate concurrence for the ratification of the ASEAN Charter. Today, we heard several criticisms mostly based on the fact that Burma has not released Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and therefore any ASEAN Charter should contain provisions that are stronger than what are contained in it at present. At present, there is a human rights body but the charter confines itself to its creation and its provision than its terms of reference, that means its implementing rules and regulations shall follow. At this point, there is no clear definition on what the human rights body is authorized to do. This human rights body was the initiative of the Philippines and therefore, on the part of the Philippines, there could be no accusation that the charter will be a paper tiger because the Philippines fought very bravely to include this provision in the charter. It is incumbent now on these ASEAN members to establish this human rights body and go after the Myanmar issue.

The second is related to the first. The main objection was why does the ASEAN Charter enshrine the policy of non-intervention in internal affairs? That’s a very simple question to answer. The UN charter began when it was formally submitted with a clause concerning domestic jurisdiction, in effect, the provision of non-intervention in the proposed ASEAN Charter is simply an echo of that provision in the UN charter. Non-intervention is a logical outcome of state sovereignty. No state will allow in any document to which it is a party to, to allow any certain foreign entity to interfere with how it runs its own government.

Basically, the objections are in the nature of idealism versus reality. We wish it were a more perfect document, but because of the variated cultures of our region, it is very difficult to get a consensus on a document that will govern with legal force the affairs of these member governments. That’s the best we could do at this moment.

Ambassador Rosario Manalo of the ASEAN Charter Task Force: The ASEAN Charter provides the Association with a legal basis--a legal personality--which means that one, we can sue and be sued if it is internationally recognized, and secondly, that state parties will have the obligation to comply with whatever agreements or decisions are taken.

We think that this is a move forward from the loose association into this rules-based organization. The purpose of the Charter is to have the organization set up an ASEAN community which will be more effective in addressing the challenges and the risks confronting the region and the globalized world.

The Charter by itself is just a framework. It is envisioned that there will be subsequent protocols to flesh out the provisions of the charter. It is not an all-cure for certain, but it is certainly a base to build and strengthen further the region of the member states of Southeast Asia.

Commissioner Quisimbing of the Commission on Human Rights on why the Philippines supports the charter: The CHR welcomes the hearing on the Committee on Foreign Relations as well as your just announced intent to recommend the ratification to the committee members.

The criticism of the charter is that it sets up an ASEAN human rights mechanism but is vague on what its powers are going to be and what its mandate is going to be. However, this is the first time in history that an ASEAN body is even thinking of having a human rights body. Asia is the only region in the world that does not have a human rights body. We see this as a very important step and welcome the fact that the Philippines is the one that championed putting this into the charter and convinced countries like Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam, which are less democratic, to even let it be put in this important charter for ASEAN. We do not expect that something as specific as the power of who will be members of an ASEAN mechanism, will be put in this. We can look at the Charter as a constitution, and as Ambassador Manalo said, the details of such a mechanism can be put down in future documents.

We in the Philippines, with our human rights orientation and our pledge to the UN to champion regional human rights cooperation and protection, will work for a strong mechanism, not one that’s just going to be advisory, all of that is still open for discussion. But the fact is all ten countries of ASEAN have agreed to at least take this very important step.

The ASEAN Charter is a legally binding document that is why we are pushing for it. Today, there is no such document or understanding that could provide the legal power to enable the rest of ASEAN to see to it that Myanmar complies with human rights laws. All the ten member states will comply if the ASEAN makes a declaration or issues a decision to take a certain course of action.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

5 October 2007

On Administrative Order 197

I have not yet received a copy (but) I can immediately notice that there is a constitutional issue involved. This administrative order might be on a collision course with the constitutional provision of the right of the public to know. It might be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on that grounds, so I am already worried as a constitutionalist.

I believe that it could be adequately covered by the doctrine of executive privilege which is already have been upheld by the Supreme Court in that case of Senate v. Ermita. There, the Supreme Court invalidated the Executive Order No. 464 but at the same time it said that the doctrine of executive privilege, which is not a constitutional provision, is applicable but under certain conditions. It even made a special mention of diplomatic secrets and military secrets. In those two cases, the doctrine of executive privilege is mostly applied by the Supreme Court, that is to say it takes the word of the president; but the Office of the President must give certain specific details to explain why it is a secret. It cannot just invoke executive privilege in a general way. It must give enough details without giving away the secret. The issue of constitutionality will hinge on how the administrative order is worded.

In the Senate v. Ermita case, the Supreme Court, in effect, invalidated the language employed by the executive order—it was just too broad, it was not properly invoked, etc. So again, this might be the observation of the court in the hypothetical case that someone brings a case to question the constitutionality of the administrative order; and definitely that would be the threshold issue for any Senate committee to its chairperson who wishes to probe into military activities. Automatically, there would be an invocation of this administrative order, and then at that point the Senate would invoke the Supreme Court decision again, as in the case of Senate v. Ermita.

On the Comelec budget

The Office of the President cut down the Comelec proposed budget by nearly half, from P 8B to only P 4B. Under the constitution, the Senate Finance Committee has no longer jurisdiction to increase its budget because there is a constitutional prohibition.

The important fact about the Comelec is that it spends more or less P 5B whenever national and local elections are held together. So that’s the cost to the Filipino. Every time there is an election in both the local and national levels, immediately that’s P 5B. The Comelec always asks for a budget in the billions for voter validation, but why do we have to spend P 1.5B just to clean up the voters’ list. We’ve been engaged in this project for maybe decades. Maybe we should look for an alternative option for voter validation at lesser cost but with equal effectivity because I don’t really see very much effect on election results as announced, there are always cries of electoral fraud, and one of these frauds are fake voters’ participation or falsification of election document. This is just too big an expense.

On the CHR budget

I gave them instructions, as a constitutionalist, that there should be equal protection between civilian victims and military victims since the public is under the impression that only civilian victims are protected by the commission. There has to be emphasis that the military and uniformed people are also entitled to the protection of the Commission on Human Rights. For example, if they are treated by the combatants against the government in a manner that would be violating the international law on conflicts or the international law on war.

On the ARMM budget

This area, the ARMM, includes five provinces which are always at the bottom of the ranking for social development and for economic development, and yet ARMM for the past many years has always had one of the biggest budgets in the General Appropriations Act. Its budget is far bigger than the budget of the entire Congress of the Philippines, bigger than that of the Office of the President, bigger than that of maybe a dozen executive departments, and yet it remains at the
bottom of the list. So where is all that money going? We would like to know.

Plus, for personal services, the general rule of thumb is that it cannot exceed thirty percent of the total budget. But for the ARMM, it is more than seventy percent! What are all these people doing? I think that they have to produce more results to justify such a huge huge budget.

[ARMM proposed budget for 2008: P8.614B; 2007: P8.292B; P8.292B]