Press Release

21 June 2007

MIRIAM: SENATE SECRET BALLOT IMPRACTICAL

Responding to media queries, administration Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that the reported plan of the Senate opposition senators to use secret balloting for choosing the next Senate President is "too utopian and impractical."

The opposition has announced that they will vote as a bloc for one of them to be Senate President, after he or she is chosen through secret balloting.

"There are three reasons why the plan will not work. One, the opposition is not monolithic. Two, there is no remedy if someone does not follow the gentleman’s agreement. Three, the purported agreement requires the consent of the main contenders, who are Senators Villar and Pimentel," Santiago said.

Santiago said that although the opposition can count with nine members, it still needs to convince two independent senators to join the bloc, namely, Senators Pangilinan and Honasan.

"In an ideal world, the opposition should remain united. But this is an illusion, because Senate history shows that after the elections, every senator believes himself to be a free agent,” Santiago said.

Santiago also added that there is no formal written agreement for the opposition bloc to remain solid.

"Unity in the opposition is only a hope, not a reality. There is no written document, and even if there were, it would not be legally binding. You can’t go to court to enforce a so-called gentleman’s agreement, specially among politicians," she said.

Santiago said that the two most serious contenders for Senate presidency are Senators Villar and Pimentel, neither of whom has declared that he will voluntarily follow the purported agreement.

"It would be anomalous to bind two senators who are not parties to the agreement. Senators Villar and Pimentel will have to speak for themselves," she added.

Santiago, after dismissing the reported secret balloting procedure of the opposition, predicted that the next Senate President will be supported by a coalition of both administration and opposition senators, following "an established pattern" in the Senate.

"Tying down a senator’s right to cast his vote is like attempting to domesticate a wild bull. It can’t be done, and it might backfire in the sense that the bull might turn around and gore his tormentors," she said.

-o0o-

Press Release

21 June 2007

MIRIAM: TRILLANES WILL STAY JAILED

Responding to media queries, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that senator-elect Antonio Trillanes will likely remain in jail even after Congress resumes session in July, following a landmark Supreme Court decision.

Santiago cited the 2000 case of People v. Jalosjos, where the Supreme Court ruled that a convict in jail pending appeal and later elected representative, had to stay in jail even after he won in the election.

"Just because a detention prisoner has won as senator does not mean that he should be free to attend Senate sessions, because that would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution," Santiago said.

Santiago explained that the Equal Protection Clause requires the government to treat alike all persons similarly situated, and that no undue favoritism may be allowed.

"All persons charged with nonbailable offenses, such as the crime of coup d’etat, have to remain in jail. Election as senator does not entitle a detention prisoner to special treatment. Otherwise, the result is what the law calls an invidious discrimination," she said.

Santiago quoted the ruling in People v. Jalosjos, thus: "Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty or movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class."

Santiago explained that the Supreme Court ruling was based on the concept of public self-defense. The Court also added that "it is the injury to the public which state action in criminal law seeks to redress. It is not injury to the complainant."

Santiago said that to allow detention prisoners to attend Congress sessions would amount to the creation of a privileged class.

She further quoted the Jalosjos ruling, thus: "Allowing accused to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to the position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused’s status to that of a special class, it would also be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system."

Santiago said that Jalosjos, while a detention prisoner and after election as a representative, was provided with a congressional office and staff at the Batasan. He was also provided with an office at Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa. While under detention, Jalosjos was able to file several bills and resolutions. Jalosjos also received his salaries and other monetary benefits as a representative.

"On these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoner could perform his function as a representative while in jail. In fact, the Supreme Court went so far as to state that since he was a detainee, the accused should not have been allowed by the Bilibid Prison authorities to receive his constituents in jail."

Santiago said the Supreme Court justified its ruling with the following explanation: “When the voters of his district elected the accused to Congress, that would fall with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. That would fall with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison."

-o0o-