JPEPA SIDE ACCORD OK’D

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, released the exchange of notes between foreign affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and Japanese foreign affairs Minister Masahiko Koumoura concluded last week.

“In international law, an exchange of notes constitutes a treaty, binding on the parties and implying performance in good faith. This exchange of notes will in effect constitute an integral part of the treaty,” she said.

Santiago said that every senator has been given a copy of the exchange of notes on Philippine constitutional provisions, in order that the senators could take the exchange into due consideration when they vote on the Jpepa.

“The exchange means that areas of investment activities reserved by the Constitution to Filipinos will remain reserved, and will not be opened to Japanese investors,” she said.

Santiago said the exchange confirms that Jpepa will not result in a violation or amendment of any nationalistic provision, notably “the ownership of lands of public domain and exploration, development, and utilization of all waters, minerals, coal, petroleum oils, all sources of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources.”

Santiago said Jpepa will respect the reservation to Filipinos only of all “preferential rights, privileges, and concessions granted to qualified Filipinos covering the national economy and patrimony.”

“For example, the Japanese cannot lease or own alienable public lands. Neither can they own and transfer private lands,” she said.

Santiago said that the exchange of notes prohibits the Japanese from operating any public utility, practicing any profession, or owning mass media or advertising corporations.

Other fields that the Constitution reserves exclusively to Filipinos concern health and educational institutions.

Jpepa will not amend any existing law protecting Filipinos from unfair foreign competition, regulating foreign investments, promoting preferential use of Filipino labor and domestic materials, or regulating the transfer of technology.

Santiago also said that the exchange of notes emphasizes the Jpepa provision that the treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties, in order to allow for future Philippine laws that might not conform to Jpepa, but are intended to enforce the nationalistic constitutional provisions.

“This exchange of notes is of course considered binding between the Philippines and Japan , and will be respected as an integral part of Jpepa,” she said.

Santiago said that under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an exchange of notes is binding, when it is established that the states agreed that the exchange should have that effect.

“Thus, the constitutional issues raised by the treaty have now been resolved,” she said.

In the Senate, Jpepa is at present undergoing the process of interpellation on trade issues, handled by Sen. Mar Roxas.

After the trade issues are discussed, interpellation will proceed on the constitutional and legal issues, to be handled by Sen. Santiago.

After the period of interpellation is closed, three days later, voting on the treaty will be held.

The Constitution requires concurrence by two-thirds vote of the Senate, for the treaty to be considered ratified.

-End-

PALACE-SENATE ACCORD ON TREATIES

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has agreed in principle that henceforth, all negotiating panel for treaties like the controversial MOA-AD should include at least one member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that the accord was reached, when she and President Arroyo discussed the constitutional issues arising from the MOA-AD and the Jpepa.

“President Arroyo accepts that since the Senate has to concur with her ratification, the Senate should play an active role in treaty negotiations, at least with respect to constitutional and other issues,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that at a meeting in Malacañang last Friday, August 29, President Arroyo said she had issued instructions that the MOA-AD shall not be signed at all.

“That will preempt the declared intent of some Christian and Ilaga leaders in Muslim Mindanao to arm themselves, in anticipation of Muslim marauders in their communities,” the senator said.

Santiago said that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, care should have been taken in drafting the MOA.

“If signed, the MOA would become part of the preparatory documents that constitute the context of any treaty. As part of the context, it is considered as a guide to the interpretation of the treaty itself. Thus, it is significant,” she said.

Santiago said the mere terminology used – “Memorandum of Agreement” – was already unfortunate.

“The title of the document should have been more neutral. Since it was so unequivocal, it immediately raised a furor,” she said.

The Senate said that even if the MOA is characterized as a political question, the Supreme Court would still have the power to acquire jurisdiction, if it can be shown that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of executive officials.

“In the United States, it has been a long-standing practice to invite senators belonging to the Senate foreign relations committee to join the negotiating panel, so that the senators can anticipate what problems the treaty might raise in the Senate. Thus, verbal booby traps can be avoided,” she said.

-End-

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.

MIRIAM: SENATE TO CONCUR WITH ASEAN CHARTER

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said that she will submit by next month her committee report recommending Senate concurrence with the Asean charter, and expects Senate concurrence before the end of the year.

“If all ten member states ratify the charter by December, it will enter into force in 2009. Thus, Asean will ratify its constitution even ahead of the European Union, whose charter was rejected by two countries,” the senator said.

Of the ten Asean members, seven have already ratified the charter, while three countries including the Philippines are engaged in the process of ratification.

The ten Asean members are: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia , Indonesia , Laos , Myanmar , Malaysia , the Philippines , Singapore , Thailand , and Vietnam .

“It was the Philippines that first proposed the Asean charter in the 1970s. To be consistent, the Senate should concur. The Asean charter is a treaty and is therefore binding,” she said.

Santiago said that although the Asean charter includes the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, it will speak out on humanitarian or self-defense events, such as the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar .

“It was also the Philippines who took the initiative in providing for an Asean human rights body, now part of the charter. If Myanmar ratifies the charter, it will be obliged to comply with its provisions and all other Asean agreements,” she said.

Santiago said the Asean Human Rights Body will enable Asean to stop depending on foreign human rights monitors, and instead manifest to the world Southeast Asian regional perspectives on human rights.

“The charter also enshrines the so-called Asean Way of settling differences, meaning consultation and consensus. This is the basic decision-making principle in Asean,” she said.

“The main tangible result of the charter will be the creation of an Asean Economic Community. This means the creation of a single market and product base. In the Asean Economic Community, there will be free flow of goods, services, investments, and capital. It will also facilitate movement of business persons, professionals, talents, and labor,” Santiago said.

The charter provision for the creation of an Asean Economic Community is a direct result of the Asean Economic Community blueprint signed in Cebu last year, when President Arroyo presided at the Asean Summit.

“The emergence of China and India as economic powers has created new realities for Asean. The Asean Economic Community will keep the Philippines competitive alongside these two Asian giants. The Asean Economic Community will be established by 2015,” Santiago said.

MIRIAM ELEVATES PREMATURE CAMPAIGN BAN TO SC

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago took her fight against premature campaign advertisements by filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Earlier, Santiago filed a similar petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which was dismissed with a comment that the Comelec is not the proper forum to resolve the constitutional issue she raised.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, argues that allowing rich and influential candidates to advertise themselves two years before the campaign period violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Santiago’s petition contains nine arguments:

• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine provided by the Constitution, when it dismissed Santiago’s earlier petition by transferring the burden of resolving the case to the SC;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred when it chose to ignore the glaring conflict between Section 79 and Section 80 of the Election Code, in effect abdicating the policy of the law to make sure that no candidate unfairly campaigns ahead of others by sheer audacity and mental dishonesty, making it appear that the ban applies only to a person who files a certificate of candidacy.
  
  Section 79 of the Election Code defines the terms “candidate” as a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy. The same section defines “election campaign” as “an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates”. Section 80, on the other hand, defines premature campaigning by imposing a ban on “any person, whether or not a voter or a candidate.”
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to resolve the conflict between Sections 79 and 80 in favor of Section 80 of the Election Code, inviting unscrupulous politicians to circumvent the prohibition against premature campaigning by filing his or her certificate of candidacy in the last day before the start of the campaign period to avoid prosecution;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in ruling that the ordinary meaning of Section 79 must apply, as a result, gravely ignoring the true intention of the law which is to provide equal opportunity to all candidates in the election;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that the SC, in Chavez v. Comelec,did not resolve the conflict between Sec. 70 and 80 of the Election Code. The SC’s decision simply stopped at an isolated reading of Section 79 and did not proceed to the logical conclusion dictated by the applicable rules of statutory construction that demanded an application of Section 80;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that neither did Lanot vs. Comelec resolve the conflict. While the SC, in its decision, recognized that an absurd conclusion results when the law is interpreted to mean that a person who has not yet filed a certificate of candidacy is not yet a candidate, it stopped short of definitively resolving the conflict between Sections 79 and 80 of the Election Code;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that the defense of free speech and free expression cannot be invoked to shield the circumvention of the Omnibus Election Code (the right to free speech and free expression cannot be exploited to exonerate unlawful electioneering);
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to accept that the exceptions under Section 80 of the Election Code no longer apply because of certain changes in electoral practices, such as the 1987 Constitution’s rejection of the two-party system, which was then valid when the Election Code was written;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in ignoring the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause, our Constitution prohibits a statute to favor one class of candidates–-those who have the influence and money–-over another class – those do not have the same influence and money to engage in premature political advertising. In effect, a statute which discriminates between its subjects makes a classification where there is no “rational relationship” between legislative means and ends.

Santiago earlier slammed the Comelec for being “fainthearted” and “timid” when the commission dismissed her petition and refused to ban campaign activities by presidential wannabes.

MIRIAM OK WITH LUMAD AUTONOMOUS REGION

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that the Constitution allows Congress to pass a law creating a Lumad Autonomous Region.

“In fact, the Constitution not merely allows but orders the creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao. However, the Constitution does not say that the autonomous regions shall be confined to Muslim areas only,” she said.

Santiago said that a bill embodying the proper organic act has to be filed in Congress, and should first show compliance with the constitutional requirement that the Lumad share “common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics.”

The senator said that a Lumad Autonomous Region is also supported by the constitutional policy that “the State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities.”

In another development, Santiago said that it is only the Supreme Court which can decide whether to suspend proceedings questioning the constitutionality of the MOA-AD which creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity.

“The American experience is not applicable, because the cases were suspended during the civil war, and then during a world war. What we have in Mindanao is merely an insurgency,” she said.

Santiago said that the petitioners should respect President Arroyo’s statement that the government would renegotiate the MOA-AD with the MILF, thus rendering the petition moot.

“While the power to determine foreign policy is shared by the President and the Congress, it is only the President who speaks on behalf of the entire country in foreign affairs. It would be unwise to preempt her,” she said.

Santiago also stressed that greater autonomy for the Bangsamoro, even under a federal system, would not give them the right to secede from the Philippines .

“The Constitution explicitly provides that autonomous regions shall operate within the framework of the Constitution, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity,” she said.

Santiago said that it was “ill-advised” for the GRP panel to agree to the term “Memorandum of Agreement” or MOA.

“The GRP Panel should have insisted on the term ‘Memorandum of Understanding,’ or MOU. On the one hand, an MOA normally indicates an intent to be bound. On the other hand, an MOU is normally a set of unilateral interpretations of a treaty under negotiation,” the senator said.

Santiago said that if the Supreme Court proceeds to rule on the constitutionality of the MOA-AD, it will consider two factors: the content of the MOA; and the evidence of the intent of its makers.

“In reporting on the development of autonomous regions, we should avoid using the international law term ‘self-determination.’ It refers merely to decolonization. Instead, we should use the constitutional law term ‘autonomous region.’ It refers to the territorial integrity of our country,” she said.

MIRIAM PUSHES FOR PHILIPPINE STANDARD TIME

It’s about time.

Aiming to synchronize the functions government agencies through a single time reference, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed Senate Bill No. 2535, also known as the One Time Philippines Act.

“Discrepancies in time between government agencies have led to unnecessary friction brought about by the disparate interpretation of schedules and their observance,” Santiago said.

Under the proposed law, all government offices, government-owned corporations and local governments are compelled to observe and maintain their schedules according to a Philippine Standard Time (PST). The bill also encourages the private sector to follow suit.

“A definite time reference would remove inefficiencies brought about by different interpretations of time, particularly among government offices,” Santiago said.

The bill mandates the Philippine Atmospherical Geophysical Services Administration (PAG-ASA) to establish the PST. Presidential Decree No. 78 has designated PAG-ASA as the official time service agency of the country.

Santiago recently secured new Senate rules to punish absent or late senators, and to prevent them from delaying the passage of bills. The Senate also approved her motion for sessions to start promptly at 3:00 p.m.

JPEPA HAS NUMBERS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said that Senate concurrence on Jpepa is “virtually assured,” because 14 senators have already signed the committee report.

“The required two-thirds vote of the Senate is only 15 senators, so we only need one more vote. That won’t be hard, because the issue of constitutionality has already been settled,” she said.

Santiago said that just a few days ago, Japanese foreign minister Masahiko Komura authorized Ambassador Makoto Katsura to sign an exchange of notes with foreign affairs secretary Alberto Romulo, in effect amending the treaty.

“The result of the exchange of notes will be that all Philippine constitutional provisions reserving certain economic activities to Filipinos and to corporations 60% Filipino owned shall prevail over Jpepa,” she said.

Santiago said that in effect, the exchange of notes will cancel the Jpepa provision that Japanese in our country would get “national treatment” – meaning, the same treatment as Filipinos in investment activities.

“Our national patrimony and natural resources will remain safely in Filipino hands,” she said.

Santiago said that pursuant to the RP Constitution, many areas of economic activity will continue to be reserved to Filipinos, such as land ownership, use of natural resources, operation of public utilities, practice of all professions, ownership of schools, of mass media, of advertising industry, etc.

“Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 13, an exchange of notes in effect constitutes a treaty in itself, provided it states that the exchange shall have that effect,” she said.

Santiago said that Jpepa might be RP’s most important bilateral economic agreement in the last 50 years.

“Agriculture and exports will be the biggest winners. The treaty will immediately have a positive impact on farmers, fishermen, and food processors,” she said.

Santiago said that the moment Jpepa becomes effective, immediately 95% of RP exports to Japan will enjoy zero duties.

“ Japan has already concluded similar economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with Singapore , Mexico , Malaysia , Thailand , Chile , Brunei , and Indonesia ,” she said.

Santiago said that Japan will certainly increase its foreign direct investment (FDI) in RP, which in 2002-2006 already amounted to US$938 million.

“Japan is our biggest source of official development assistance (ODA) which in 2006 already amounted to US$4.7 billion. With Jpepa, ODA will get even bigger,” she said.

Santiago said that with Jpepa, RP exports to Japan is expected to reach $405 million or P 559 billion by 2011.

“Although there will be zero tariffs on 145 waste products, they cannot come in, because they are banned by R.A. No. 6969 on toxic wastes, and R.A. No.9003 on ecological solid wastes,” she said.

Santiago also said that both countries are bound by the 2007 exchange of notes between the RP and Japanese foreign ministers, stating that “Japan would not be exporting wastes to RP, in accordance with the Basel Convention” on the control of transboundary moment of hazardous wastes.

The 14 senators who signed the committee report were: Sen. Santiago, Roxas, Angara , Arroyo, Enrile, Gordon, Lapid, Revilla, Zubiri, Biazon, Legarda, Estrada, Pangilinan, and Pimentel. All had reservations except Angara and Enrile.

The 5 senators who did not sign were: Honasan, Madrigal, Trillanes, Pia Cayetano, and Escudero.

MIRIAM SLAMS “TIMID” COMELEC

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said she will appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) resolution refusing to ban campaign billboards by presidential wannabes.

“The Comelec resolution is timid, literal, and non-responsive,” Santiago said.

Santiago criticized the Comelec for its descriptive rather than analytical style of interpreting the law, calling it a glaring deficiency.

“In this sense, it is not only old-fashioned, but also calcified,” she said.

The senator accused the Comelec of abdicating its constitutional responsibility because it did not recommend to Congress effective measures to prevent election malpractices as required by the Constitution.

“The Comelec says a premature campaign is ignoble. But in effect, they don’t want to offend anybody, so they’ll just pass the buck to the Supreme Court,” the senator said.

Santiago also criticized the Comelec’s “muddled thinking” when the Commission agreed that the issue involves two conflicting provisions of the Election Code on the one hand, while claiming that the law is allegedly clear on the other.

According to Santiago , the rules of statutory construction exist so that a primary agency like the Comelec can interpret the law without throwing everything to the Supreme Court.

“That is the primary-jurisdiction doctrine. They blithely ignored it. And what happened to my equal-protection argument? They were fainthearted, so they ignored it, too,” she said.

Santiago said that she was very sad and disturbed by the Comelec’s refusal to administer and enforce the law. “Their smug attitude just makes me feel tired. I get depressed with this kind of self-righteous passive resistance to reform in our country,” the senator said.

Santiago’s appeal will be handled by her law office since the senator will be busy until November with her campaign for a seat in the International Court of Justice.

-o0o-

MIRIAM SUPPORTS CABRAL ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, an educated lay theologian, said that she supports the position taken by Social Welfare Secretary Esperanza Cabral favoring reproductive health.

“I take the position that there is an individual right to use artificial contraception, such as condoms,” she said.

Santiago said that the Catholic insistence on natural contraception is outdated and archaic, and explained that Catholic teaching is evolutionary, for example in the cases of religious liberty and of usury.

“The Catholic religious should get real,” Santiago said, recalling that the natural-law mentality of the Church in the Middle Ages prohibited many advances in medical science.

In 1966, the Papal Commission majority report argued that the conjugal act must be viewed not as an isolated reality, but in the larger context of human love, family life, and education, among other things.

“This is the principle of totality. Sexuality is not meant only for procreation,” Santiago said.

She said that the final report of the Papal Birth Control Commission and the Vatican 2 insisted that the decision to have children must take into account the welfare of the spouses and their children, the material and spiritual conditions of the times, their state in life, the interests of the family group, of society, and of the Church.

-o0o-

MIRIAM SEEKS COMELEC RULE ON POLL ADS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a 19-paged petition last Saturday (June 21) with the Comelec to declare as an illegal election offense, any political advertising in the form of commercial and other endorsements, until the official campaign period starts in 2010.

“It is a mockery of the law to start campaigning two years before the 2010 elections. The Election Code bans any election campaign outside the campaign period,” the senator said.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said politicians conducting premature campaigns under the pretense of commercial endorsements violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

“Until the Comelec makes a categorical interpretation of the Election Code, the rich and powerful candidate will enjoy an unfair advantage over the poor candidates. This is not allowed under the equal protection clause,” she said.

Santiago said that the Supreme Court condemned premature campaigns in the 2004 case of Chavez v. Comelec, and the 2006 case of Lanot v. Comelec.

“In both cases, although it denounced premature campaigns, the Supreme Court stopped short of declaring it a criminal offense and ordering the prosecution of violators, because there is a conflict in the law,” Santiago said.

Santiago pointed out that under the Election Code Sec. 79, the ban on premature campaign applies only to a person who has filed his certificate of candidacy.

The senator added that by contrast, Sec. 80 imposes the ban on premature campaign “on any person, whether a voter or a candidate.”

“The way out of this dilemma is to apply the rule of statutory construction that Comelec should follow the context, intent, and policy of the law, and should interpret it to avoid an absurdity.”

Santiago said that because the Comelec has failed to rule on the issue, under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine, it is the duty of the Comelec to ensure equality among candidates by declaring that a premature campaign, which is considered an election offense, should be prohibited even if the person has not yet filed his certificate of candidacy.

Santiago’s lengthy petition filed with the Comelec and fully explaining at least seven legal arguments, indicates that if she does not obtain a categorical ruling from the Comelec, she will elevate her petition on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

In her petition, Santiago also asked the Comelec to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against politicians, billboard firms, and TV stations, allegedly engaged in premature campaigns.

The Santiago petition is a class suit, meaning that there are no other petitioners and there are no named respondents, because both parties are so numerous that it is impractical to include them all, and the subject of the controversy is of common interest to the public.

After her petition was filed Saturday, Santiago left for New York to join President Arroyo at a dinner reception for UN ambassadors.

MIRIAM DONATES PORK BARREL FOR PGH EQUIPMENTS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago turned over P12 million worth of medical equipment sourced from her priority development assistance fund (PDAF) to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) in a ceremony yesterday . 

Last year, Senator Santiago dared other senators to donate their annual PDAF, also known as pork barrel funds, to “kickback-free” projects, such as projects for the PGH, which is the country’s biggest charity hospital, and to the University of the Philippines (UP), the country’s premier state university. 

She also reiterated her call to other senators to donate to “clean” projects, instead of refusing outright their pork barrel.

“Mere renunciation of pork barrel does not constitute a public service. It needs follow-up to make sure that the money refused goes to worthwhile social services. Instead of seeking publicity for giving up pork barrel, senators should allocate their pork barrel to ‘clean’ projects where it is impossible to get a kickback, such as the importation of expensive medical machines to be made available free to the poor,” she said.

The medical equipment, consisting of endoscopic ultrasound machines and endoscopy systems, will be used for the improvement of patient services and the teaching-learning situations in UP-PGH’s gastroenteronomy section. 

Santiago has consistently been one of PGH’s top donors of medical equipment since 2005. The same year, she donated endoscopy systems to the PGH, while last year, she sponsored the construction of infliction control rooms, medical students’ call rooms, aux rooms and medical gas installation wards.

In 2005, she launched the “one senator, one PGH machine", a personal campaign intended to solicit pledges from other senators to donate to the PGH. Although the campaign has raised curiosity and interest among the senators, Santiago lamented that no senator has followed up on his or her pledge. 

UP President Ermelinda Roman, UP Manila Chancellor Ramon Arcadio, and PGH Director Carmelo Alfiler were also present in the turnover ceremony.

MIRIAM HITS FOREIGN CHAMBERS ON IPPs

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate energy committee, said that the Joint Foreign Chambers of the Philippines (JFC) oppose amending Epira because they do not want a review of the IPP contracts.

Epira is the Electric Power Industry Reform Act, while IPP is an industry power producer.

“The foreign chambers have a conflict of interest. They want to preserve Epira, but at the same time they do not want a review of the IPP contracts, apparently because they want to protect their economic interests and investment returns,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that under the IPP law, any proposed electric generating facility should prove that it can generate electric energy cheaper than can be generated by Napocor (NPC), by accessing lower cost of capital, cheaper plant investment, and locally manufactured equipment.

She said that according to a study, in all types of power plants, the IPP costs are higher than NPC generation costs.

“Napocor IPP contracts are like the BOT contracts. They are not standard PPAs which take some levels of business risks,” Santiago said.

BOT stands for build-operate-transfer, while PPA stands for purchase power agreement.

“The IPPs make windfall profits at the expense of consumers. The IPP contracts are unconscionable because the IPPs are already paid for capacity, and for operation and maintenance. Yet at the same time they have a take-over-pay level for variable energy conversion fees. The take-or-pay provisions are excessive,” the senator said.

Santiago said that IPPs follow a fee structure of dollars per kilowatt hour, where the standard procedure is based on pesos per kilowatt hour.

Santiago listed the alleged inconsistencies in the JFC letter to Pres. Arroyo, as follows:

• JFC objects to Epira amendment, but does not particularly explain why.
• JFC contradicts itself because it rejects Epira amendment, but at the same time supports earlier open access. To achieve earlier open access, Epira has to be amended.
  
• JPC contradicts itself by calling for transparent and competitive electricity industry market and yet it rejects at the same time a review of IPP contracts. This is also conflict of interest on the part of JFC.
  
• JFC makes a bare statement that amending Epira will negatively impact the power industry market, without specifying the ways in which negative impact would result.

Santiago said that JFC issued the statement on the presumption that by the end of 2008, NPC will complete 70% privatization.

“What is the basis for this presumption? Will JFC members participate in bids for the JPC assets? At present, no foreign companies are involved in bidding for NPC assets. The only active bidders are local investors,” the senator said.

Santiago said virtually the entire Senate rose to criticize the recent JPC letter to Pres. Arroyo opposing Epira amendment, because the letter should have been addressed to the Congress.

“Lawmaking is the sole prerogative of Congress,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that the senators did not like the letter, because it appears to be an attempt by foreigners to meddle in Philippine policy making.

Transcript Of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s Interview

On The House Bill Providing For Snap Election

That is unconstitutional. The term of the president is six years unless he or she is impeached. Impeachment is the sole process by which you can remove an elected president during his or her term of office.

If you wish to remove the president during her term of office on another ground, you will be adding to the grounds provided by the constitution; therefore, you are either committing an unconstitutional act by passing that kind of law and surely that will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Or, you first have to campaign to convert the Congress into a constituent assembly so that it can amend the constitution. But in the form of a law, you cannot change the constitutional provision on removal of a sitting president.

MIRIAM INVITES FOREIGN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE TO SENATE ENERGY HEARING

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago called for a Senate Committee on Energy hearing for Friday (June 6) following senators’ collective condemnation of the statement from foreign chambers of commerce regarding the country’s energy policy.

In a letter last May 27, the Joint Foreign Chambers (JFC) urged President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo not to renegotiate the government contracts with independent power producers (IPPs) nor amend the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (Epira). This drew the ire of senators, saying that the foreign business group is meddling with lawmakers’ efforts to reduce power rates.

Santiago said that it is a question of what kind of amendment the JFC doesn’t want, since Congress is only changing certain provisions of the Epira and not its entirety.

“The only problem with the IPPs is that they have a take-or-pay provision which is very onerous to the Filipino taxpayer. The foreigners can source their electricity from IPPs with take-or-pay provisions but it should not be a standard clause in our contracts of the government and the IPPs,” the senator said.

Santiago invited presidents of various foreign business groups to the hearing, among them Rick Santos of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Richard Barclay of the Australian-New Zealand Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Stewart Hall of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Hubert D’Aboville of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Toshifumi Inami of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Jae Jang of the Korean Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, and Shameem Qurashi of the Philippine Association of Multinational Companies Regional Headquarters, Inc.

Also invited to the hearing are Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes, National Power Corporation President Cyril C. Del Callar, Power Sector Assets & Liabilities Management Corporation President Jose C. Ibazeta, Energy Regulatory Commission Chair Rodolfo Albano Jr., and Ernesto Pantangco, president of the Philippine Independent Power Producers Association.

MIRIAM WARNS RP WATERS IN PERIL

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned “alarmists in Congress” to stop pushing for a new baseline bill without expert advice, because the Philippines “would virtually lose sovereignty over our internal waters.”

“These alarmists will unwittingly turn over our internal waters to foreigners,” said Santiago, reacting to weekend news that some senators want a new baseline bill to be passed, without consulting international law experts.

Under the Philippine Constitution, Article 1, the internal waters are “the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago.”

Santiago said that the move to pass immediately the baseline bill would be “a case of the blind leading the blind,” because RP internal waters would be transformed into “archipelagic waters” under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

She said that the “archipelagic waters” concept would allow foreigners to enjoy many rights inside Philippine territory such as: right of archipelagic sea lanes passage; right of innocent passage; traditional fishing rights by neighboring states; and right to repair or replace existing submarine cables laid by foreign states.

“Alarmists should understand that the right of innocent passage given to foreign vessels include the right of navigation and overflight, not only for foreign commercial vessels, but also for foreign military vessels and aircraft. Can we handle that?” Santiago said.

Santiago, also a constitutional law expert, said that Unclos conflicts with the Philippine Constitution, not only because of the archipelagic waters concept, but also because Unclos would severely limit Philippine sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

The Constitution, Article 12 Sec. 2 Paragraph 2 provides: “The state shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”

Santaigo said that under Unclos, this constitutional provision will become invalid, because Unclos provides that when RP does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, RP should “give other states access to the surplus of the allowable catch.”

“In other words, instead of reserving the EEZ exclusively to Filipinos, RP has to allow foreigners to fish in the EEZ. Thus, the Supreme Court will certainly declare Unclos as unconstitutional. And then the foreign state may sue RP for violation of Unclos before a foreign tribunal,” said Santiago, the Senate’s recognized expert in international law.

The baseline of the Philippine archipelago consists of straight lines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands.

The baseline is the starting point for computing the area of the 12-mile territorial sea, 24-mile contiguous zone, 200-mile exclusive economic zone, and the 200-mile continental shelf.

The Philippines needs a new baseline bill, in order to compute the area of the extended continental shelf (ECS), which can be up to 350 miles.

The deadline for filing a claim for ECS with the United Nations is 13 May 2009.

“Since we have one year to meet the deadline, why do we need to rush the baseline bill? First, we should create a Congressional Commission on National Territory, so that we can use as background material the report and recommendations of international law experts,” Santiago said.

Santiago said it was “grave error” for certain quarters to push for a baseline bill first, and then to create the commission later.

“That is putting the cart before the horse. International law is radically different from domestic law. There are only two international law experts in the Philippines. They are Justice Florentino Feliciano and Dean Merlin Magallona. All others are self-proclaimed,” said Santiago, herself listed as an international law expert by the United Nations.

Santiago said that experts have to decide whether the Philippines is a party to the Unclos.

The senator said that when during martial law the Philippines ratified the Unclos, it made an impermissible reservation to fix the limits of the Philippine territorial sea under the 1898 Paris Treaty.

Under the Vienna Convention, Art. 19, when a treaty prohibits any reservation, and a state ratifies the treaty but makes an impermissible reservation, that state is not a valid party to the treaty.

“Before we rush to a baseline bill, lawmakers should first have the benefit of advice from international law experts. Otherwise, to a great extent, we lose our sovereignty over our own internal waters. That would be anomalous, because our archipelago will become an open maritime highway. Filipino fishermen will have to compete in our own waters with foreign fishermen,” she said.

Santiago said that if Congress votes to defer the creation of the congressional commission and to pass a baseline bill first, she would refuse to defend the baseline bill.

“I cannot defend a bill that will turn over our internal waters to foreigners, and run the high risk of being declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” said Santiago, who is also a constitutional law expert.

Santiago said the Senate Rules prohibits senators who voted in favor of a committee report, to change their minds and oppose the bill in plenary session.

The committee report recommending that the commission should first be created and its report submitted, before the Senate discusses the new baseline bill, was signed by 14 senators.

“The point that the order of priority should be reversed has become moot and academic, because this particular committee report to create the commission has already been passed by a majority of senators,” Santiago said.

MIRIAM GOES AFTER ABSENT, LATE SENATORS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago successfully secured new Senate rules to punish absent or late senators, and to prevent them from delaying the passage of bills.

On Santiago ’s motion, without objection, the Senate adopted the new rule providing that absence of a senator will be deemed as a waiver of his right to interpellate the sponsor of any bill. “Under present practice, delay results when an absentee senator does not show up during the date that he reserved for interpellation. Delay also results, when a bill’s sponsor is absent, and there is no one to answer the questions,” the senator said.

Santiago said that if a senator has to be absent, then he should appoint a substitute senator to continue pending business. Another Santiago motion passed by the Senate is for session to start promptly at 3:00 p.m. as scheduled, and not to wait for a quorum which usually appears only at 3:30 or even 4:30 p.m.

Under the new rule, a Senate session will start at 3:00 p.m., on the condition precedent that the session will be deemed retroactively valid, when a quorum is raised, at which time roll call will be held.

“We are bending Robert’s Rules of Order, which requires a quorum to start a session. But the Supreme Court has held that the Senate can change its internal rules of procedure at any time,” said Santiago , a lawyer.

Santiago noted that last Wednesday, May 28, at 3:00 p.m., there was no quorum as usual, but when Senate President Manny Villar banged his gavel, immediately a quorum appeared. “It is a matter of self-discipline.

Late senators should not be allowed to determine when session will start,” the senator said. Santiago’s motions were supported by Senators Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, and Richard Gordon, who each spoke up to denounce absenteeism as a source of delay in legislation.

But Majority Leader Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the new rule will apply, only if the Senate President agrees to start session without a quorum. Santiago ’s third successful motion was to add two podiums facing the senators, in addition to the six installed podiums, which all face the Senate President.

The new podiums will be installed by Monday, June 2.

“This is the arrangement in most Congresses worldwide, including the U.S. Congress. At present, when a senator delivers a privilege speech or a sponsorship speech, he has to turn his back to the other senators, in order to face the Senate President. The present system also makes it hard for media and people in the gallery to follow the speeches,” Santiago said.

-End-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

On premature campaigning through commercial advertisements

I have taken the liberty of writing the chairman of the Comelec, former Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, so that Comelec can study and then issue a resolution on the question of premature campaigning. We know that the law prohibits premature campaigning but several putative candidates for the 2010 elections, whether they are presidentiables, vice presidentiables, or senatoriables are already campaigning in the guise of commercial advertising, particularly on television or billboards. That is a violation of the law, and we lawmakers in the Senate should not be among the first to violate the law.

Their excuses are very thin and very prevaricating. It is a reality that in our Election Code there is no premature campaigning if the candidate has not yet filed a certificate of candidacy, and that would be allowed once election period begins. So to argue that before the certificate of candidacy has been filed any person can campaign is very specious. It is a way of contravening the law, or breaking the law but making a very sham excuse for it.

Secondly, the common excuse is the Election Code also allowed campaigning if it is intended to capture a seat as an official candidate of a national party. But basically, all these candidates are sure of being nominated by their party, so again that is a false and a mentally dishonest argument.

Apparently the Senate President has said that the Senate has to make a study on premature campaigning. But I humbly submit that primary jurisdiction to reconcile and interpret these appropriate provisions of the Election Code does not belong to Congress. It belongs to the Comelec, because under the Constitution, the Comelec has the primary function to enforce and administer our election laws. In other cases, the Supreme Court can pass resolutions interpreting certain provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. That is what they should do now so that we could stop all these pretense that they are not campaigning but they already are inflicting pain and boredom to the TV and radio audiences by campaigning so early.

Some argue that they are merely earning extra income. Give me a break! A senator’s total remuneration is more than handsome. So they cannot claim that they are indigent, or that they need to raise money. They were never commercial models before. Some of them just do not deserve to inflict their faces on the TV audience.

I hope that Comelec will duly consider my request, and thereafter issue a resolution so that it can define for us the crime of premature campaigning. It is penalized in the Election Code. All of these arguments made by these candidates concerned are in direct conflict with a specific provision of the Election Code, which it is illegal to campaign directly or indirectly to solicit votes or support for his or her candidacy. There is a specific provision that prohibits a premature campaign even it is done indirectly, which is being done today.

So I hope with the Comelec resolution, all candidates will draw the line. Comelec just has to read the riot act to these recalcitrant candidates. I am not referring to any particular candidate. I am just discharging as a lawyer what I feel is a very humble contribution to the rule of law in our country.

Does it only cover commercial products or does it include personal advocacies?

Yes of course. There’s a time for that—that’s the campaign season. It would fall under the provision that makes it unlawful to conduct any election activity or partisan political activity.

In fact, I think out of the sense of delicadeza, politicians who are in power should appear as commercial models at any time. You can never tell whether in the future a member of Congress might be faced with a bill or some decision that might represent a conflict of interest between the commercial establishment for which he made an ad and his duties as legislator. So even without premature campaigning as an issue, I don’t think that any incumbent senator or congressman should appear endorsing any commercial product.

Not everything that is legal is moral. They should just remove those without waiting for the Comelec to issue a formal order. That order from the Comelec would humiliate them. If I were one of those candidates I would just voluntarily pull out those advertisements. If you read between the lines of the Anti-graft Law, that would be a case that a member of Congress should observe self inhibition in endorsing any commercial product because of any potential of conflict of interest.

-o0o-

28 May 2008

Chair Jose A.R. Melo
Commission on Elections
Intramuros


Dear Chair Melo:

This is to respectfully request a Comelec Resolution on the implementation of BP Blg. 881, the Omnibus Election Code of 1985, particularly Sec. 80, which makes it unlawful for any person to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity, except during the campaign period.

This prohibition against premature campaigning is blatantly circumvented at present, under any or all of the following disreputable claims:

• Since under Sec. 79 (a), “candidate” refers only to a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy, allegedly the prohibition does not apply to a person who has not yet filed the certificate.


• Since Sec. 79 (b) allows campaign acts, if performed for enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination of a political party, allegedly the prohibition does not apply.


• Since Sec. 79 last paragraph allows public expression on probable issues or on attributes of probable candidates for nomination of a political party, allegedly the prohibition does not apply.

Such claims are specious and made in bad faith, because Sec. 79 (5) specifically defines an “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” as: “Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges, or support for or against a candidate.”

I respectfully submit that it is Comelec, not Congress, which has primary jurisdiction to interpret the Election Code, under the Constitution, Article 9 (C) and Sec. 2 (1) vesting the Comelec with the power to: “Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election . . . .”

I respectfully file this request, in response to mounting media and public clamor to stop the ongoing premature campaign of certain candidates. It is unacceptable for lawmakers themselves to violate the law, by invoking deceptive technicalities to circumvent that law. I do not direct this request against any particular candidate. But as a lawyer, I merely want to make a humble contribution to the rule of law.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.)MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

MIRIAM ASKS ERC TO REDUCE POWER RATES

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Joint Congressional Power Commission (Powercom) issued instructions to ERC chair Rodolfo Albano to take immediate steps to reduce Meralco rates.

Santiago said that although Powercom has no power to issue orders to ERC, the EPIRA law gives Powercom the function of issuing guidelines to ERC, and to monitor and ensure implementation of the EPIRA, which was intended to lower power rates.

In a privilege speech yesterday, Santiago issued the following guidelines to ERC:

• Resolve within three months, all pending petitions already submitted for resolution, with the end in view of lowering immediately the Meralco power rates;
  
• Uphold consumer protection in resolving the present petition from Meralco and Napocor, requesting permission to pass on to the consumers some P14 billion of the Meralco debt;
  
• Announce immediately a cap on systems losses, lower than the existing 9.5 percent cap;
  
• Order Meralco to list all inclusions in their generation cost;
  
• Order Meralco to show cause why it should not immediately give refunds to its consumers, pursuant to the Supreme Court decisions in cases concerning Meralco income taxation which were apparently passed on to consumers; and
  
• Order Meralco to show cause why it should not immediately give refunds for deposits on billing meters.

In the same privilege speech, Santiago said that the internet website of ABS-CBN, owned by the Lopez group, has committed against her the crimes of blackmail or grave threats, as well as the crime of libel, intended to defeat her candidacy for the International Court of Justice.

Santiago said that the website is guilty of following a scheme or pattern, because a series of derogatory articles against her and Powercom appeared immediately in the website after she chaired a Powercom public hearing to investigate why Meralco power rates are so high, the second highest in Asia.

Santiago chaired the meeting on May 12; the alleged defamatory articles appeared on May 16, 21, 23, and 25.

-End-

LOPEZ FIRM HITS MIRIAM ON WORLD COURT BID

Only weeks after Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago partly blamed Meralco for high power rates, the ABS-CBN internet website in its top story tried to scuttle her candidacy for International Court of Justice (ICJ) by claiming that “some countries are moving to oppose her . . . , she has not even qualified for the highest court of the country.”

The story claims that “some countries are moving to oppose her,” without naming the countries or giving the reason for the alleged opposition.

The story also claims that “she has not even qualified for the highest court of the country,” referring to the decision of the Judicial and Bar Council not to even consider her nomination because they chose to adopt the policy of considering only incumbent Supreme Court justices.

Santiago recently presided over a televised Joint Congressional Power Commission hearing where she equally blamed Meralco and the National Power Commission (NPC), as well as alleged lax regulation, for the high power rates charged by Meralco.

Both Meralco and ABS-CBN are part of the vast Lopez business empire.

A top official in the Philippine Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York , alleged that “the negative spin of the news articles obviously affects the campaign since foreign embassies in Manila and the foreign service of other countries would report this to their capitals.”

The source also said that “the article would tremendously affect both the gains achieved by the Philippines in the campaign in the ICJ and its future efforts to preserve such gains to obtain more support.”

Santiago is not running in her own individual capacity, but as official candidate of the Philippines .
“The news article is full of unhelpful conjectures and factual errors,” the source said.

The derogatory item in the ABS-CBN website was published on May 23, only days after the probe on high Meralco rates.

Contacted for comment, Santiago said that the bicameral investigation was part of Powercom duties under the law.

While Santiago is Powercom chair, the co-chair is Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo, son of President Arroyo, who has been urging Meralco to lower its power rates.

“I will have to take this in stride, because the Philippines has a culture of corruption. A vast business empire such as that of the Lopez family will not hesitate to use its media outlets, even to the point of destroying a national candidature, in order to protect their giant corporate profits,” Santiago said.

Santiago added that at least one newspaper columnist in a national daily had previously hinted that there would be a propaganda campaign against Santiago’s ICJ bid when because the columnist mentioned that her prior bid for another international court was scuttled because Santiago was an Estrada ally at that time.

Santiago added she would consider over the weekend whether she will avail of her options, such as a libel suit or a privilege speech on Monday, or whether she will just “suffer in silence” from the Lopez media firm.

“It is obviously the work of a dirty tricks department so evil that it hardly merits attention. In trying to destroy me, they are also destroying a Philippine national candidature. Sometimes iniquity is its own worst punishment,” she said.

- End -

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

On the proposal to restore the death penalty

As a former RTC judge of Quezon City , I oppose the move to restore the death penalty. When I was RTC judge and handling cases punishable by death, during the course of the trial I noticed that when the accused was threatened with the death penalty, there was no obvious terror or deterrent effect on the face of the accused. Apparently, criminals who go to the extent of murdering people are not deterred by the death penalty. This is not to underestimate the heinousness of the crime, but there are remedies.

The abolition of the death penalty was a matter of criminal law philosophy that it is better to rehabilitate the accused than to kill him outright. Number two, we will be going against the global mainstream if we restore the death penalty because it has been condemned, meaning to say that it has been vigorously sought to be abolished not only by the churches, but also by the United Nations and the European Union. So that would be a step backward.

Normally, the arguments in favor of the death penalty are that the penalty should be commensurate to the crime. However, the problem there is not whether by taking their lives we would restore the lives of those they took. The answer of course is no, those lives have been lost. If we punish with the approach of an eye for an eye, a death for a death, then we are starting a vicious cycle.

Plus, in this case, we would be violating the right to life, which already has been constitutionalized in our country. You will say “What about the right to life of their victims?” You will be correct. However, the question here is what is the best penalty for society as a whole. It may be that the families themselves may not even wish for the death penalty, they’ll simply wish for appropriate punishment. Sometimes, considering the miserable conditions of our jails, life imprisonment can be more proportionate as punishment than death itself.

Today we are very moved, and we sympathize and understand the grief of the families of the victims. But suppose after a month unearths documents to show that people who have been meted out the death penalty were innocent of the crime. Do we again agitate for the abolition of the death penalty? So, in other words, our attitude should not reflect what is happening in society, instead reflect a calmer, more objective view of the issue.

Death is not the answer to death. The answer to death is life. You can never tell which one of the rehabilitated and become a useful member of society. This does not mean that everybody is free to commit murder. In fact, the solution there is to make sure that for the families of the aggrieved that police and NBI enforcement should be stepped up because justice delayed is justice denied. The faster we identify the perpetrators, and the faster that the court sends them to jail, then, maybe, the better we can reduce the degree of grief of their families.

I don’t think that it would be a proper reflection on the sobriety and scholarship of the Senate if we pass a bill just about in the prior congress, and then backtrack. We cannot change our minds every two years. It would not say very much about our consistency or our grasp of the issues involved.

MIRIAM: JAIL FOR LYING ON POWER RATES

Sen.Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Joint Congressional Power Commission (Powercom) said she would cite for contempt any official of Meralco, NPC, or WESM who fails to prove allegations made during the public hearing on power rates.

“In other words, if I catch them lying under oath, those officials could be fined up to P500,000, and jailed up to six years,” she said.

Santiago said that for her to decide who is lying, she has secured the cooperation of UP professors who are experts in the electric power industry, namely: Profs. Allan Nerves, Rowaldo del Mundo, and Bienvenido Malquisto, from the Electrical and Electronics Engineering College; and Profs. Arthur Cayanan, and Helena Agnes Valderrama from the Business Administration College.

Santiago issued “urgent orders to submit information” to Meralco president Jesus Francisco, NPC president Cyril del Callar, Asst. vice-president Mario Pangilinan of PEMC, and OIC Alejandro Barin of the ERC.

The orders specify particular documents required from each agency, to be submitted 15 days from receipt of the order.

“The first order of the day is to determine the price paid to the IPPs of both Meralco and NPC,” she said.

Santiago said the issue with respect to Meralco is alleged price manipulation, by making it appear that their own IPPs sell at cheaper prices than those charged by NPC and WESM.

The senator said the issue with respect to NPC is that NPC has been passing on to customers actual IPP costs, instead of avoided costs, meaning marginal cost, as provided by law.

“What Meralco and NPC pay to their respective IPPs, sets the reference rate for the power rates paid by consumers. We have to put closure on this IPP issue, otherwise our power rates will be high forever,” she said.

Santiago said that if documents prove that Meralco intentionally made the decisions to favor its own IPPs at the expense of consumers, that would be management abuse which could be a ground to cancel the Meralco franchise.

“It is virtually impossible that Meralco managers did not know that their decisions would result in unconscionable transfer of wealth from consumers to their own pockets. Such alleged mismanagement is punishable,” she said.

“The second order of the day is the alleged NPC manipulation which results in the Meralco billing for WATOU, or weighted average time of use. It appears that the TOU rates of NPC are very high,” she said.

Santiago said a separate hearing will be needed on the issue that NPC is allegedly increasing its prices to create an emergency situation which would allow it to buy fuel, not through competitive bidding, but through negotiation.

“The Senate energy committee has a duty to investigate whether NPC is negotiating with fuel supplies, instead of holding competitive biddings. The related allegation is that NPC is dealing with fly-by-night coal suppliers,” the senator said.

-End-

MIRIAM BATS FOR REGIONAL LABOR COURTS

Just before Labor Day, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed Senate Bill No. 2207 to abolish the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and instead create regional Courts of Labor Relations

“With courts in every region, the workers are assured of their constitutional right to speedy disposition of their complaints, and the employers will be spared long and costly litigation,” she said.

As of June of last year, the NLRC had a backlog of 7,736 cases—5,000 more than the preceding year.

The senator points out that the delay is due to a number of reasons. The first reason for delay is that of the 155 incumbent labor arbiters, 53 are assigned as “reviewers” in the Office of the Commissioners.

This leaves half of the labor arbiters to hear and resolve the average