Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview

9 September 2009

On her letter to the Ombudsman regarding the infomercials of cabinet officials 

Nang natapos namin ang aming public hearing tungkol sa mga infomercials ng mga cabinet member na ang gamit pala nila ay pondo ng gobyerno, kaagad nagbigay ako ng kopya ng aking committee report sa Ombudsman. Sumagot naman siya agad na iimbestigahan niya. That is what we call a preliminary investigation. You’ll remember that I gave the cabinet members until the end of August to pull out their commercials in case the contract has already covered that period. 

Pero September na ngayon, at meron pa ring naiiwan according to my staff. Meron pang apat pa (VP Noli de Castro, Sec.. Ronaldo Puno, Pagcor Chair Efraim Genuino, MMDA Chair Bayani Fernando). Yung iba, pinull-out na nila. Kaya ginampanan ko ang sinabi kong gagawin. Pinapaalala ko lang sa Ombudsman na kung maari magfile na ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan. Itong mga ito, dahil ang kasong kriminal diyan ay malversation of public funds, hindi nila ginamit ng maayos ang pera ng gobyerno, o inaamin na nila sa pamamagitan ng linya sa kanilang infomercials na “Paid for by friends of _____”. Kung paid for nga ba talaga ng kanilang friends, ibig sabihin tumanggap sila ng napakalaking pera sa kanilang mga kaibigan, at iyan ay bawal ayon sa Anti-Graft Act. Kung hindi man friends nila ang nagbayad kundi sila mismo at pinalitaw lamang nila na friends nila ang nagbayad, iyon ay kasalanan pa rin sa batas dahil ibig sabihin meron siyang unexplained wealth. Kaya kahit anong sabihin nila, wala silang depensa. Kaya tayo nagbigay ng palugit, baka hindi lang nila nalalaman. Huwag naman sana sila magmatigas nang ganoon dahil nakakahiya sa presidente at maiisip ng publiko na ang ating presidente ay sumasangayon sa mga cabinet members na ito. Hindi sila nagdudulot ng karangalan sa ating presidente kundi nagbibigay pa ng perwisyo.

On its implication of FVR’s group leaving the administration coalition

Naturally it makes the coalition of the administration weaker. To what extent it is weakened is the question. It is not really a question of parting from the administration coalition because all the time those two people have been working against the administration—they have said so in public. So it was completely expected, something that you can foresee. The question there is how weak the administration coalition now be because of the separation of these two. I can say that it has virtually zero effect on the full strength of the administration because the allies of the administration depend on the administration to put the force of its moral authority and the equity of its incumbency to help them during the campaign. During a campaign, it is not the personalities who are involved to determine where the candidate will affiliate himself, it is how much resources and how much more votes the party or coalition will be able to give to the candidate.

Laos na ba sina FVR?

Yes. In effect they are bargaining because they were bargaining and they have actually fulfilled their threat, but we shall see whether anyone will go with them or they are all alone crossing the sea and wandering around the desert. I think that that will happen. It will be biblical in proportion.

Is this a loss for President Arroyo?

Hindi naman, dahil noon pa they were taking potshots at her already. And when she caught them with their hands in the cookie jar, she gave their wrists a slap, and they pretend to be offended.. But the thing is, they were caught in the act. So I think that this is so much better because it clears the air.

On FVR supporting Sen. Aquino’s bid for the presidency

I don’t know if he has forgiven Tita Cory Aquino for marching in the streets against him when he tried to amend the Constitution so he could extend his stay in power. I was together with my ninang, Pres. Aquino, when she did that because I was also against charter change at that time, and I won the case in the Supreme Court which I myself argued. So I don’t know if he can get over that.

On Sen. Aquino’s decision to run as president

That is a foreseeable event. The question now is what will the surveys show. There are people willing to say hallelujahs every time there is a new leader in the horizon, hoping that they could get something out of it. The hallelujah chorus is always present in any presidential camp. But the issue will be how will Sen. Aquino fare in the next presidential elections. He has now confirmed that he is a presidentiable.. We shall now see, since the person he replaced placed only about number four in the recent surveys, whether he can exceed that number, and then we would see if it was right for Sen. Roxas to give way for Sen. Aquino. But if not, then the LP will be having a tough time in the presidential campaign.

On her advice to Sen. Noynoy Aquino 

Obviously everybody does know that surveys have already taken the place of party conventions. You’ll notice that political parties no longer hold conventions to determine who will be their candidate. People just go by survey. We tried to legislate or regulate these survey companies but we were unsuccessful here in the senate. 

On the word war between former President Estrada and Sen. Lacson, with Sen. Lacson to deliver a privilege speech next week

You can bet that Sen. Jinggoy Estrada will certainly rise also on a question of privilege maybe the next day so that he will have enough time to rebut all the points. But I don’t know whether all of these are related to our basic function of legislation.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s Interview

16 November 2007

On the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Agreement between the Philippines and Spain
Kung matapos [ang pagpasa sa] treaty, pwede nang ipalipat ang mga convicted na mga Pilipino (mula) sa Espanya. Meron na tayong ganitong treaty sa Hong Kong at sa Thailand . Meron pang mga treaty na tapos na ngunit hindi pa kumpirmado ng Senado galing sa Canada at Cuba , at susubukan natin na ang ganitong uri ng mga treaty ay mapalawak natin para sa ating mga overseas Filipino workers, lalo na ang mga naco-convict halimbawa sa Middle East . Para silang incommunicado bilang mga preso doon at wala silang pamilya doon na bibisita sa kanila. Iyan ang pakay natin.

Nag-public hearing kami ngayong araw, at sa Lunes ay iso-sponsor ko na sa Senate floor, para pagkatapos ng mga debate ay maghihintay na lang ng tatlong araw para maaprubahan na for third reading sa Senado.

Ilan ang Pilipinong nakakulong sa Espanya?
Pito lang naman sila, out of about 50,000 Filipinos. Ang problema natin sa mga natapos ng treaty sa Hong Kong at Thailand ay hindi pa tayo nag-iimplement ng mga treaty na iyan dahil sa ilalim ng lengguwahe ng mga treaty na ito ang Pilipinas ang gagastos para sa pag-uwi ng mga Pilipino. Walang appropriations sa budget para diyan. Kaya kinakailangan kapag humingi tayo ng concurrence ng Senado, hihingi rin tayo ng kahit limang milyong piso man lang para pambili ng tiket ng mga uuwing sentensyado o convicted persons.

I raised many cracks (in the treaty) or gray areas that are not covered so that they could be covered by the implementing rules and regulations by the Department of Justice.
[Larrañaga] will be the most celebrated beneficiary of the treaty dahil siya ay dual citizen. Citizen siya ng Pilipinas at citizen din siya ng Spain . Dito siya nakakulong pero hindi pa tapos ang kaso niya dahil ang sentensya niya ay reclusion perpetua [at] pinaapela niya ang kanyang sentensya sa Korte Suprema. In his case, the judgment is not yet final. The treaty will apply only if the judgment has become final.

Pero ipalagay natin kapag nasentensyahan na siya ng Korte Suprema, kung gusto niya at magrequest siya dahil Spanish citizen siya, or if the Spanish government makes a request and he consents, doon siya ikukulong sa Espanya. May sasabihin diyan ang pamilya ng biktima, natural, dahil gugustuhin nila na dito sa Pilipinas (siya makulong). Kaya pag-iisipan natin ang mga kasong ganoon. Baka mamaya, ang pakiramdam ng publiko ng Pilipinas ay nadehado ang pamilya ng mga biktima. We cannot entertain any request for transfer from the convict or the state until judgment has become final in our Supreme Court, in the case of Larrañaga.

Who must initiate the request for transfer, the sentenced person or either of the governments?
It is indispensable that the prisoner must consent whether or not he initiated it. Pwede na i-initiate ng Spain , as long as the prisoner later on consents, because we are talking of starting the process. In any event, even if the process has started, if the prisoner does not give his written consent, then everything else that took place before will become invalid.

On the JPEPA
The last hearing will be conducted on Friday next week, 23 November 2007. I am leaving for the ASEAN aspect for my candidature for the International Court of Justice the following Sunday. I will be present on Friday, but for the purpose of continuity, the chair of the secondary committee will continue to preside because he presided already over the additional hearing. He (Senator Roxas) and I have already agreed in principle that we have to find a way so that the treaty will not be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but will also be recipient of the approval and consent of Japan . It is very, very tricky. It depends on the way the language (of the treaty) will be couched. Remember that no state, particularly Japan , wants to lose face, so we cannot say that this treaty is unconstitutional under Philippine law—it is my prediction as a humble scholar of constitutional law that it will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately under international law, a state cannot relieve itself of the obligation to implement a treaty just because its Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional. Philippine constitutional law is internal to us, and does not have any validity with respect to an interstate dispute before an international court. We cannot plead that as a defense, but we cannot enforce this treaty because the Supreme Court says that it is unconstitutional. So we have to find a way so that we can accommodate the constitutional dimension in the treaty, but at the same time be able to encourage or persuade the Japanese government to give its consent because this is a bilateral treaty—the other party must always give its consent, both to the treaty and to any subsequent conditions and provision, in which in international law could be called a reservation, understanding, or declaration. The supplemental agreement, or the clause that will assure constitutionality of the treaty for the country, will be contained either in a reservation or an understanding or declaration or exchange of notes. In any event, it will require approval of the Japanese government.

The most practical thing to do, as chair of the committee, is to draft the diplomatic language and consult with DFA and the Japanese ambassador on whether the language is diplomatic enough that it will be considered acceptable by Japan, because if Japan does not consent nothing will come out of these efforts. We cannot just run the risk of campaigning just for concurrence by the Senate plenary only to have it rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It will already be an embarrassment for both President and the Philippine Senate who would have concurred. At the same time, it would be a ground for dispute with Japan in an international court. It is in fact crucial for us to be able to deal with the aspect of constitutionality raised by the oppositors but in a manner acceptable to the Japanese.

We must save the treaty because there are good provisions there. We just have to make sure that it does not work to the disadvantage of our people. While I am hoping that I may accomplish this before the Christmas break, it all depends how hospitable an attitude the Japanese ambassador will show. I am very happy that the Japanese ambassador has not rejected any effort to put a postscript to the treaty. Normally other state parties will be very adamant if they already have the upper hand in a treaty, but at least he is very open-minded. In effect, we will just be applying the provision already in the treaty that within one year, each party may expand its reservations. The problem here is this: When they were negotiating the treaty, the Japanese government’s panel were very alert. They made very comprehensive reservations. Unfortunately for us, the reservations we made are too few. What happens now under the treaty is that the Philippines is in a disadvantage. The negotiators made reservations to the “National Treatment” clause, the “Most Favored Nation” clause, and the “Prohibition Against Performance Requirements.” Under the “National Treatment” clause, the state must accord to the nationals of the other state the same treatment but you are allowed to make reservations. There are reservations that are much longer than ours.

This kind of comprehensive reservations that Japan made in the treaty is enjoyed by other countries, such as Malaysia and Thailand , which have already ratified their respective treaty with Japan . I will have to explain in the Senate floor why Japan ’s reservations are longer, and why Thailand and Malaysia have longer reservations than us. What we need to do is to make a provision, or to make sure that the article in the treaty that provides for further reservations within the period of one year will include reservation that will ensure constitutionality of the treaty.

On the recent bombing incidents
We have not yet established a pattern. The recent findings even by foreign police teams were that the Ayala blast was caused by an industrial failure. The initial findings of the PNP are that the blast that killed the congressman was only focused on his own personal assassination. We just have to wait for other senators and congressmen to be assassinated by bombing so that we can declare that there is a pattern of assassination that already indicates terrorism.

But before that, we could draw no conclusion. I don’t think that there should be cause for concern among the senators and congressmen since they are always declaiming about their great love of country. More often love of country is illustrated by young men who go off and sacrifice their lives in the battlefront, so I don’t see why very old people or middle aged people should be so afraid to die for their country when young people are automatically shipped to die for their country. So I am counselling everyone in the Congress: wait until you get assassinated. Then we shall know whether this is terrorist or whether this is just assassination.

If you have this series of blasts, of course foreign investment will respond accordingly. So far it hasn’t. It means that the international business community believes that these incidents are anecdotal. That is a very good sign. It means that the international business community believes that the fundamentals of the Philippine economy are sound.

On whether President Arroyo can take back former President Estrada's pardon
I have said that, normally, if the person pardoned violates the conditions of his pardon, then of course the pardon becomes null and void. But I have to see the pardon itself as signed by the President. It was reported in the papers that it was full, complete, and absolute. If that is the case, it is not a conditional pardon. There is no condition for it. Even if he, let’s say, violates the law, then the pardon will continue. It depends on the language employed. I am only trusting what I read in the papers; if it is accurately reported as having been “full, complete, and absolute pardon,” then the mere fact that he has violated the law will of course incur liability in the prosecution service for him, but it will not necessarily lift the pardon.

News Release

18 September 2007

MIRIAM: ERAP HAS TO ADMIT GUILT

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that both pardon and amnesty will imply guilt on the part of former President Joseph Estrada, if he decides to apply for executive clemency.

Santiago, in a privilege speech last Monday, urged Estrada to apply for pardon and not amnesty, which is granted to political offenses and not to those convicted of plunder.

Santiago derided lawyers who have claimed that either pardon or amnesty does not imply guilt.
The senator said that in the 1965 case of People v Pasilan, the Supreme Court ruled: “Availing of the benefits granted by the amnesty proclamation would be inconsistent with the plea of not guilty which appellant entered upon for arraignment. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when the accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot avail himself of amnesty.”

She also cited the 1989 case of Monsanto v Factoran, Jr., where the Supreme Court ruled: “Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof.”

Santiago added that the Monsanto ruling was repeated in the later 1993 case of Garcia v Chairman, Commission on Audit.

“The latest cases show that both amnesty and pardon imply guilt on the part of the applicant. President Estrada should be so advised, in order to avoid injustice to him,” Santiago said.

The senator said that Estrada would not qualify for amnesty, because it is only granted for a political offense, which she defined as “an ideologically motivated act, expressing political opposition, directed against the security of the state.”

Santiago said that the “paradigmatic political offenses” are coup d’etat, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and treason.

During interpellation by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Santiago said that the grant of executive clemency to the former President would bring closure to the issue which has divided the nation for the six years that trial was pending in the Sandiganbayan.

Also in answer to the younger Estrada’s question, Santiago said that an appeal to the Supreme Court will take at least two years to decide, while a motion for new trial with the Sandigan, if granted, would result in a completely new trial which could take another six years.

“In the meantime, Pres. Estrada and his supporters will continue to suffer mental anguish, and the nation will remain in political distress,” Santiago said.

When Sen. Estrada asked if there was any other remedy available to his father other than pardon or amnesty which would not imply an admission of guilt, Santiago said there is none, except the judicial remedies such as motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or appeal to the Supreme Court.

She cited the principle that even if the law proves to be harsh, it is the law and therefore must be obeyed: dura lex, sed lex.

Santiago ended with a sarcastic note: “I believe that all the talkative people who have either been advising or speaking for Pres. Estrada should do him the justice of full legal research.”

-o0o-