News Release

9 October 2007

MIRIAM TO OMBUDSMAN: FILE COURT CASE AGAINST DE VENECIAS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate finance subcommittee, in effect told Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to proceed and file the anti-graft cases in the Sandigan court against the De Venecia father and son.

Santiago effectively made the recommendation during her committee hearing on the budget of the Ombudsman yesterday (Tuesday).

Santiago, a former RTC judge, cited the anti-graft law, Section 5, which provides in part that “it shall be unlawful for any relative within the third civil degree of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract, or application with the government.”

Santiago further quoted Section 6, which provides in part that it is unlawful for any Congress member during his term “to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him; or to recommend the initiation in Congress of any such law or resolution.”

Santiago said that apparently, the Ombudsman complaint filed by Atty. Roel Pulido constitutes a prima facie case (meaning, evidence good and sufficient on its face, unless contracted by other evidence), which is the threshold standard for a complaint to be entertained by the Ombudsman.

Santiago added that after the Ombudsman studies the complaint, it appears that there will be probable cause (meaning, a reasonable cause because there is more evidence for the case than against it), which in turn is the threshold standard for filing a case with the Sandigan court.

“As a former judge, I am impressed with Atty. Pulido’s complaint. It meets the two standards of prima facie evidence and of probable cause,” Santiago told media.

The complaint alleged that Joey de Venecia applied for and obtained a congressional franchise for his company, but concealed his own ownership.

The Speaker allegedly knew of his son’s interest in two companies, but concealed this information from the House.

“That the Speaker knew of his son’s business interests which were pending in the House is allegedly supported by the Speaker’s own public statement that his son is ‘the father of broadband in the Philippines,’” she said.

Santiago also said that the Speaker had made a public endorsement of his son’s bid for the broadband project.

The senator also cited her own interpellation during the Senate hearing, when transportation secretary Leandro Mendoza testified that it was the Speaker who organized a breakfast meeting between Mendoza and the son in the Speaker’s house.

“During the Senate hearing, the son admitted under oath that the Speaker similarly organized a breakfast meeting between him and Comelec chair Benjamin Abalos to discuss the ZTE deal,” Santiago said.

The senator added that in the Senate hearing, the son admitted that although his name does not appear in the incorporation papers of both companies, he actually owned or controlled them.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

9 October 2007

On the significance of the testimony of the First Gentleman regarding the NBN-ZTE scandal

No, it is not vital to the prosecution case. Hypothetically speaking, if criminal charges are filed against the administration in connection with the ZTE case, the testimony of the First Gentleman will be very marginal. It is not absolutely necessary. It is not the core of the complaint. In fact the complainant himself admitted in public that the First Gentleman did not ask for any money. He simply allegedly said that De Venecia should stop pursuing the contract, which is pursuant to law. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 5, any relative within the third civil degree of the Speaker or any public official cannot directly or indirectly intervene in any contract or transaction with the government. So assuming that the complainant’s statement about the First Gentleman’s alleged statement is true, there is nothing wrong with it because it is all pursuant to the law. He (Joey) is in fact being given good sound legal advice.

On a Kampi executive allegedly bribing legislators to endorse the impeachment complaint against the President

Bribery is one of the hardest cases to prove because you cannot convict on the uncorroborated testimony of one person, even if he is a public official. It always takes two to give a bribe and accept the same bribe. It would be different if there was only an offer of a bribe. But still the quantum of evidence necessary is corroborated testimony. You cannot just testify in court that someone offered you a bribe. That will not stand under the rules of evidence. It will be extremely difficult to prove. In bribes, there are never any receipts or any other documentary or other forms of evidence. So it’s just a person’s word against another person’s. And the presumption of innocence is always in favor of the accused. [But if there are others who claim the same story], then there would be a prima facie case.

If a case will be filed against JDV in the Sandiganbayan…

He should at least, out of a sense of ethics, file a leave of absence. In fact, in ordinary cases, an official who has been charged under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act should be administratively suspended while the case is pending. That does not apply to the legislative branch because it only applies to the administrative branch, meaning to say the lower levels of the executive branch. But still, if we heed just legal ethics, he should at least go on temporary and indefinite leave of absence to erase any doubt that in his official position he may try to influence the outcome of the case.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

21 September 2007

On the China-US turf war in the NBN controversy

We cannot discount the possibility that there is a turf war ongoing between China and America for this contract, because of the three (bidders), one is Filipino, the second is American and the third is Chinese. I just want to know if our government is being manipulated on this matter, that the scandal is being deliberately blown out of proportion by a struggle for regional power. And since we are a small, virtually insignificant country, we are being manipulated by some intelligence agency to take one way with respect to a billion-peso contract. That is my first concern.

On what she would ask in the next ZTE hearing

As much as we (senators) were unable to raise questions because we were limited to three minutes, I wanted to know if the meeting in Wack Wack Golf and Country Club between the First Gentleman and Mr. Joey de Venecia was the first between these two men, because as a former trial judge I find absolutely unnatural that after an introduction and a dialogue of very few minutes immediately one of them points his finger to the other and uses a very harsh warning (of) “Back off!” No person would do that unless they are intimate with each other.

On the ZTE as loan or executive agreement

Under the Constitution, all loans must be approved by the Monetary Board. It immediately follows in that same section in the Constitution, the provision that all treaties and international agreements must be approved by the Senate. So first, we have to determine: Is this is a loan? Then we need Monetary Board approval. Is this a treaty or international agreement? Then it needs Senate concurrence. Everybody calls it a loan, there’s no doubt about it. Both sides characterize it as a soft loan. Unfortunately there is the Procurement Law, that provides that if the government enters an executive agreement, then that transaction is exempted from the usual legal bidding process. That is the justification for why there was no bidding. But if it is an executive agreement, it might fall under the term “treaties and other international agreements” in our Constitution, which requires Senate ratification. I will explain next Monday that executive agreements need Senate ratification as a general rule. The mere fact that you call it an executive agreement does not exempt it from the constitutional requirement. However, there is an accepted exception to that general rule, that if a new treaty or international agreement is merely carrying out the provisions of a prior or mother treaty or international agreement, it does not need Senate concurrence. Malacañang has to justify why this so-called executive agreement is merely an execution or a further amplification of a former prior treaty between China and the Philippines.

On JDV’s involvment

If he has been accurately and correctly quoted by Sec. Mendoza, the language alone is already implicative of criminal liability because he was trying to influence the procurement of a government contract involving public funds. It falls under the specific and express prohibition of the Anti-Graft Practices Act, he is a relative within the third degree of consanguinity of the interested party.

If he was just inviting, there was no violation as yet of criminal law. But the moment he introduces the element of his son, Amsterdam Holdings and the ZTE contract, then there is a clear violation of the law.

-o0o-