Press Release

26 April 2007

MIRIAM BARES P1.7 M SENATORS MONTHLY BUDGET,
CALLS FOR HONEST SENATE

Incumbent Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that although a senator’s basic salary is only P35,000 monthly, a senator actually receives a monthly budget of some P1.7 million, thus posing to the senator’s moral character “grave temptation to commit big-time graft.”

The senator, who is a Laureate of the Asian Nobel Prize, known as the Magsaysay Award for Public Service, for honesty in the Immigration Commission, stressed that honesty is the most important criterion for senatorial candidates, although she added that there is no easy proof of honesty, except the previous career record and the candidates reputation among his past and present work colleagues.

Santiago was answering a question from TV host Karen Davila on a late night show Tuesday on why senatorial candidates are spending hundreds of millions to gain a seat in the Senate, when a senator’s basic salary is only P35,000.

Santiago said that in addition to the P1.7 million monthly budget, the added financial perks for every senator of some P760,000, consisting of some P560,000 for foreign travel, and P200,000 in annual capital outlay.

She told media that a senator’s monthly budget is released every month to his office, and there is no rule that requires the return of any excess money to the Senate, even if the senator hires very few employees in his staff, or works in the small Senate office for every member, in order to avoid paying rent for a secondary office outside of the Senate building.

The monthly sum of P1.7 million is supposed to cover staff salaries of some P773,000, as well as office expenses of some P998,000.

Office expenses include office rentals, utilities, office supplies, domestic travel, and similar items.

Santiago added that in addition to the office budget, there is a similar monthly budget for every oversight committee which the senator might chair.

She said that the biggest temptation to commit graft is represented by the annual pork barrel fund, which for 2007 will amount to some P200 million.

Santiago said that some senators and representatives reportedly take at least 10 percent kickback from their pork barrel funds as reported to her by building contractors who tried to approach her with similar proposals when she was first elected senator in 1995.

However, in 1995 when Santiago denounced this in a press statement, she recalled that only Sen. Juan Flavier confirmed her statement.

Also at the end of her first year as senator, Santiago returned some P750,000 to the Senate, but a number of senators criticized her because it raised public curiosity about the senators’ monthly budget.

The senator said that last year, she requested the Financial Management Bureau to tell her who are the senators who returned excess money from their monthly budget, and how much they returned, but the office told her that these data are confidential.

In 1996, a broadsheet headlined the story that Santiago was the only senator at that time to refuse a pork barrel, known as Congressional Initiative Allocation, on the ground that in her view it had no constitutional basis.

-o0o-
Appeared in the 26 April 2007 issues of Philippine Daily Inquirer and Manila Bulletin

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 Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview

5 February 2007

On actors aspiring to be politicians

I am against any candidate who does not have at least a college degree. Number one, it is truly democratic if we allow just anybody without any academic credentials to run. But, a public official occupies a political status higher than that of a mere voter. Therefore his qualification should be higher as well. It should not be the case that anyone who can vote can be voted for. We should divide the power to vote from the power to run for public office. Because experience has shown that unless the person has by inclination or by training, been educated on the legislative process, the laws he produce will not redound to the benefit of the country.

Number two, there is glaring discrepancy between the ordinary rank and file and the elective officials. In the ordinary rank and file, even the lowest position of clerk requires that the candidate has passed the civil service exam. In the case of the members of the PNP, you cannot become a policeman unless you have a college degree. So why is a college degree required to an ordinary cop on the beat, but is not required to a president who will run the country for the next six years, or on the Senate who will help in the running of the country.

So we have to address the question of equal protection. All public officials, whether elected or appointed, should be required to possess more or less the same credentials. If policemen who are appointed are required to be college graduates, then, anyone who is elective should also be required to have college degrees. I have a solution for the problem of those who are already established actors: maybe we could provide that they should undergo a six-month intensive training course in the College of Business Administration in the best schools in the country, like UP, Ateneo, or La Salle. Education should be a definitive constitutional requirement.

I find from personal experience with my friends, the Senators that come from show business, that not withstanding that I am willing to give them the presumption of honesty and efficiency in terms of hard work, there is really a deficiency in the qualification of competence, because that is not a question of willpower or a desire to be competent. It has to be result not only of the aptitude for the subject, but also of intense education on the subject of public administration, law, or politics. Even if they distinguish themselves in other fields if they have not studied law and public policy, they will not be able to make a significant contribution. And the result will be that they will depend very heavily on either their consultant or their staff, but these are non accountable because people don’t even know their faces, and we cannot hold them accountable.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview

29 January 2007

On political turncoatism

It depends on what they turn coat for, if it is just political convenience that would be a legitimate cause for concern on the part of the electorate. But if there is an undercurrect of ideology or principle then the person cannot be blamed because there are now ideological divides among our political parties. In my case for example, I always tend to side with a sitting president because of my background in law. I always insist that all legal measures must be scrupulously observed and I worry about our national economy every time there is an unseasonal change of president outside of a regular election. The economy immediately slides and the persons who ultimately foot the bill are always the poor. So, in that case, whoever is the incumbent president, regardless weather he calls himself administration or opposition. I will tend to side with the person until the expiration of the term.

On the “bidding war” between administration and opposition for Senatorial candidates

(For the parties, the question they ask to the candidates is) how much are we going to give you for your campaign funds? And How much does a candidate believe will be given to him because a promise and reality is often far apart in politics. They promise you, “run with us and we’ll give you ten million and you get one million down payment that’s all you’ll ever receive for the entire campaign.” This is actually a bidding war (of) who can promise the most money, and then it becomes a question of how far the candidate is willing to trust the word of the political advisers.

On the administration working on a “Unity Ticket”

They are working from the same pool of potential candidates, both the opposition and the administration. Politicians keep both lights open until the very last minute and the money is in the hand. Well, what the senatorials want to hear is that they will be promised 50 million independently of party expenses like travel, lodging, and other campaign expenses. That can be promised, but will that promised can be delivered upon is a question because of the experience in the past of each of these candidates.

(Who is in the capacity to give such amount?) The administration, naturally, because the campaign contributors are always inclined to give more. Any intelligent campaign contributor will give to both major sides at the very least or to both sides if there are more than two. It depends on how much it thinks is deserved, who has the better chances of winning. So that’s just politics.

I spent 50 million last time for my presidential campaign. And that was not enough because that time in 1992 people who were running for municipal mayor told me that 50 million was not enough. It has never gone beyond 50 million. That was all my campaign contributors were willing to give me. Today, for senator that is the basic minimum they hope to hear about. But they know that to get a competitive edge they have to buy more, they have to buy votes for sale. They no longer buy votes individually or by barangay or stealing the ballot box. You buy a syndicate within the COMELEC so that all they do is change the numbers in the provincial certificates. So you buy wholesale now; if you don’t buy wholesale you don’t win a senator. That was my experience in the last senatorial elections. I was always at least number two at the polls. In the final analysis, after election day, I was only number seven because I refused to deal with the syndicates and I didn’t have the money. So everyone else bought their own. They have connections in the COMELEC. They have access to provincial certificates that have to be sent to Manila. That’s why 50 million is not enough for a senator of he is not really very popular. So, I tell you the number one senator is said to have spent 700 to 800 million.

-o0o-