Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview - 13 April 2009

On the VFA

I have called for a hearing on the proposal which seems to be mounting to terminate the VFA. Under its own terms, the VFA can be terminated by either the Philippines or the US for any or no reason, and the termination will be effective after notice to the other party within six months. We don’t need a reason. The real reason is, I believe, that after ten years of operation in our country, the VFA is working more harm than good to the national interest. It is acting as a lightning rod for the enemies of the US , and we are being used as a monitoring station by the US Armed Forces in its so-called ‘war on terror’. According to President Obama there is no more ‘war on terror’ and therefore there is no need for the Americans to stay here.

On the part of the Philippines , what we got was used military equipment—in other words, American junk. I have read the papers this morning and I have discovered that the commitment to give us their used military equipment has been dangled before the Philippine government since the early 1950’s. So every time they want something from the Philippines , they will always offer the same deal. If we let them do something in our territory, they will give us their used military junk. I don’t think that it is consonant with the worldview of the new president, particularly since he has spent his childhood in Indonesia which is one of the closest and most analogous neighboring countries to ours. Therefore I think we should give President Arroyo more resources with which to face up with the US which tends to become arrogant every time it is able to get something out of the Philippines for nothing.

On charter change

In addition, I think the moment the House of Representatives passes the so-called charter change resolution, immediately I, and definitely certain other senators, will rush to the Senate to challenge the House resolution on a petition for certiorari, for example. It is their view that when the Constitution provides that a constituent assembly, composed of members of the Congress sits down to change the Charter, the legislative vote should be three-fourths of the votes of the senators sitting down with the House members—and therefore counted as an ordinary House member—that is for me a completely unacceptable view of our Constitution.

Under the doctrine of necessary implication, you read into the statute whatever is necessary in order to effectuate it. Our Constitution provides for a bicameral Congress, and therefore voting should always be bicameral. It can be held at the same time, but the House would vote among itself, and the Senate should vote among itself.

And even if we are outvoted, I believe that the Filipino voters will never approve in a plebiscite any charter change that has been passed only by the vote of the House counting the vote of the Senate together with itself. That will simply not be acceptable to the Filipino public because the Filipino voter is very jealous of his prerogative to cast a vote in favor of his president.

If we change to the parliamentary system, they will not personally vote for their prime minister, but instead surrender their vote for the prime minister and delegate it to the member of parliament of his district. The vote is the only time the voter asserts his authority in a flawed democracy like ours. Even in the case of the stupid corrupt voter, at least it gives him the opportunity to make money out of the politician that is stealing money anyway in the last three or six years. So they will never agree to the proposal to take away this power from themselves. That is the problem.

Of course there are many arguments in favor of a parliamentary system, but basically we have no background in this process because we were colonized by the Americans like other Southeast Asian country. Therefore, I feel that this will turn, like all great political questions, into a great judicial question. The issue is whether the Arroyo appointees will feel bound to vote in a partisan fashion just to support the president who appointed them to office. I don’t think so.

Is PGMA looking for a term extension?

I think she will want more to leave a good name for herself. As you know, she is faltering in the popularity surveys, and for her to be more than proactive in pushing for a shift to a parliamentary system might spell her doom. So she will have to take this in proper perspective. She will not only be fighting for her political life, but also her reputation in history.

Those congressmen are thinking that they can sell their votes to the highest bidder once they turn themselves into parliament. There will be a campaign among themselves on who will be elected prime minister. What will happen is that the ‘prime-ministerables’ will be trying to buy the rest of the members of parliament. How much will each candidate for prime minister will be willing to pay for each member of parliament? Every member of parliament will be for sale whether actually he or she is not. That is how every candidate for prime minister will view their colleague. The money used to be spent to buy the Filipino voter will now be concentrated on some three hundred people. You want to be a gazillionaire? Run for member of parliament.

Is there enough time for charter change?

No, definitely there is no more time left. Unless you run a gravy train. And I just don’t think that the Filipino is in the mood to go along the shenanigans of corrupt politicians. Why do we have to change right now? Why can’t we change it on, like, 2011 or some other period of time? Why do we have to do it right now? Are we sinking into the Pacific Ocean ? Are we gasping for breath? There is no defense on the question of necessity. Why now? Why so urgent?

Are the congressmen looking for a term extension?

A politician is always a hopeless optimist. He is always an apostle of hope. He is always hoping that things will turn out for the best. Even if they will say right now that there will be no term extensions, they are hoping that once the resolution is passed for charter change, things will somehow change and they can still remain in office. Otherwise they will not be members of the House. You have to be inconceivably optimistic to be a member of the House of Representatives.

On the status of the WB hearings

It was clear that there was no evidence as sanctioned by the Rules of Court. I think that those who won’t agree on how I conducted the proceedings are hoping that they can file the same resolution and have it assigned to another committee, otherwise engage in forum-shopping. At that point, I will put my foot down; I’m going to the Supreme Court and say you can’t do this. In the first place, the legislative committee of the Senate is not the NBI or the office of the fiscal. We are not supposed to be conducting preliminary investigations of criminal cases. We are conducting investigations in aid of legislation. And since the WB doesn’t even want to share any information with us, there is no modicum or scintilla of evidence on which to base any adverse statement against the First Gentleman.

Let the Supreme Court rule on whether if a minority of the Senate thinks that it did not get the political partisan results it was hoping for, it can go and refer the same subject matter to another committee so that they can get the result it wants in terms of political mileage. Are we allowed under the Constitution to do this? The Rules of the Senate provides that the Rules of Procedure will not be strictly followed during legislative investigations except when a substantive right of the accused is involved. A substantive right is any right protected and defined under the Constitution, and one of these substantive rights is the right to be presumed innocent.

Another committee can hold another investigation on another aspect, but you have to examine the process. If it simply results in placing the First Gentleman on the dock again, I will resent it as a lawyer.

I will file a committee report as soon as possible. I’ll simply say that there is no evidence pursuant to the Rules of Court, and my basis will be there is a substantive right involved, and under our own rules, we have to apply the strict procedural rules as provided by the Rules of Court.

Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview

21 January 2009

On the government’s economic stimulus package

What this means is that government is going to spend P330 billion creating jobs so that more money would go to the people and will circulate in the economy, and in that way we can offset the expected adverse consequences of the recession in America .

Most governments in the world are making these stimulus packages, so there is nothing unusual, much less anomalous, about it. However, the devil is in the details. We have 330 billion to spend. That should be spent in improving agricultural productivity. If we are going to spend money anyway, let’s make sure we’ll have economic security, that is to say that we will not be at the mercy of rice exporters or fish exporters when the crunch comes.

As chair of the committee on economic affairs, I prefer that the 330 billion economic stimulus money should be spent on agricultural productivity, namely on such infrastructure projects such as the building of small-scale irrigation systems or of farm-to-market roads—more or less permanent improvements that can be availed of by the people.

I am definitely against spending any part of the 330 billion to create artificial jobs, for example sweeping streets or buying overpriced uniforms or brooms. This is a very fertile source of graft. There is already a red light flashing on and off. I read that the Metro Manila Development Authority chair has already started hiring more street sweepers. That is the worst kind of economic stimulus you can think of. He is going to use that for electioneering. And I warn that person that if these uniforms are going to be pink and blue, I am going to send him to jail personally.

It may not be enough. Of course it is never enough. You see, what happens is because the United States has less money than it used to have, it is no longer importing as much as it used to be from the Philippines . Of course our exporters are hurting; some are gone outright, some of them have made massive layoffs. So more Filipinos will be losing jobs. If that is the case, there will be money circulating in the economy, and with that everything will rise, oil prices will rise. That is why it becomes necessary for an economist like President Arroyo to adopt a stimulus package to stimulate the economy. First of all you have to release more money.

On US President Obama's inaugural speech

We have all seen this spectacle. It is always spectacular. The Americans want to impress people all over the world that they are the source of the rule of law and of democracy. I doubt it very much, but that is their self-propaganda which they fervently believe.

We simply have to wait and see. I hope that President Obama will not be as hostile to international law as President Bush was. President Bush was a swaggering cowboy. I do not know if he had any academic qualifications for the post because he can’t seem to understand international law. The United States cannot act unilaterally unless it has the support of a Security Council resolution. It cannot be the policeman of the world.

By contrast, President Obama has already announced that he has a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq . That is a good sign because Iraq is the Vietnam of our days. That is going to be a deep hole that the Americans has dug for themselves, and unless President Obama seizes the initiative, they might stay in that hole for a long time.

On the composition of the ethics committee

You can’t evade the issue of the 2010 elections. The Filipino people is very fond of self-flagellation because they celebrate presidential elections as if they have anything to look forward to, and then after only six months they begin to make a death wish for the elected president. That is so Filipino.

If those presidentiables (in the ethics committee) were more sensitive to the normal issue that would arise, that is to say the conflict of interest issue, they would have declined membership. But as it is, they have accepted it; that is their responsibility. However, it will become slightly difficult to justify an adverse opinion against Sen. Villar considering that they would be contesting the same seat in 2010. In that situation, you will never be able to evade public accusations on the partiality of the judgment.

Can the ethics committee continue with the hearings without the minority?

There is no rule in our Senate Rules that compels the minority to attend, and therefore we simply considered, and since they did it out of their own volition spontaneously, they have therefore waived any right. In the voting, they would be considered at the very least to have abstained. So we will go by the rule of the majority, at least those who participated.

On the Cabinet reshuffle

My response here is ‘Why am I not thrilled?”. It is unusual because she is at the end of her term and now she wants a new team. That means that the old team is not working—that is logic. So why is it not working? She should have done that for the earlier part of her term. It speaks of troubled waters. They can’t get along with each other there; that is always the case in Malacañang. Because it is the nerve center they can’t get along with each other, they are always fighting little turf wars. And this is how she decides it. The poor president of our country who is already besieged with the massive effort to lift our economy from an impending morass because of the economic recession in America can’t be bothered with these details. This is the way she calms the waters.

On FVR’s letter praying for Sen. Santiago’s health

Don’t you know that God is very conscious about the source of the prayer? If it comes from a polluted source, God would be very upset. So he should stop praying for me.

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-

MIRIAM ON THE STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS

Removal or ibagsak are not options. An elementary sense of civilized conduct dictates solemnity when any president delivers the SONA, because it is a constitutionally mandated duty. People are fed up with “the nattering nabobs of negativism.”

What our country needs is constructive criticism, not a political culture of hatred. President Arroyo has only two more years to go, and she is trying to build a legacy. To achieve this, she is working like a perpetual-motion machine, beyond ordinary human endurance. She has no constitutional duty to control global commodity prices.

Politics is a constant war, and in warfare the first casualty is the truth. Do the Arroyo critics have a monopoly of the truth? Under the Rules of Court, President Arroyo is entitled to the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. If she hasn’t, let’s hear some alternative solutions, not empty calls for destruction.

For me, the highest concern is not the spikes in oil and food prices, but the inflation rate. An Asia-Pacific economist has already warned that inflation is the largest risk to Asian growth since the 1997 financial crisis.

We have to warn the public that interest rates and credit will tighten, in order to control inflation. Unfortunately, these measures will suppress investment and consumption. Hence, there is danger that GNP growth might slow down.

We need President Arroyo, as an economist, to design economic policy that will balance rapid price increases on the one hand, with economic growth on the other hand. That is a very tricky tightrope act. Do her critics have any brilliant ideas?

On PGMA’s alleged unpopularity

Polls are deeply flawed barometers of public opinion. First, there is no guarantee that the respondents are telling the truth, or that they will vote on election day. Second, you cannot compare popularity curves among presidents, because of chronological differences in the global or regional economy, the state of foreign-assisted insurgency, and even the occurrence of natural calamities. Third, popularity is a fickle indicator of leadership. The most reliable indicator is the courage to do what is right.

Some of the greatest world leaders were unpopular during their time. Same difference.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

After the Senate Committee on Energy Hearing With The Respresentatives from the Various Foreign Chambers of Commerce

The Joint Foreign Chambers (JFC) apologized to the Philippine Senate for that letter they sent Pres. Arroyo after Sen. Enrile and I, plus Sen. Arroyo, took turns chastising them for breaking protocol. If they have anything to say about pending legislation, they should say it to the Senate. They should not write the President because it implies that the President could order a co-equal branch of government to do what she wants. And they should not write such a letter and make it public when the Senate is in the middle of debating the amended Epira law which has already took several years. The time to have expressed those sentiments should have been during the committee hearings when the Senate hears all kinds of opinions for and against.

The senators resented the letter for we were expected to lay aside all the things we have been doing on the amended Epira law and give way to the demand of foreign investors to stop amending our own law. But they issued an apology, and in my capacity as chair of the Committee on Energy, the apology is accepted.

However, beyond that, we wanted to know ano ba talaga ang reklamo ninyo na amendahin ang Epira. Sapagkat ang layunin nun ay ibaba ang presyo ng kuryente. Pitong taon na, hindi pa rin bumababa ang presyo ng kuryente kaya tinitignan naming sa Senado kung ano ang magagwa naming hakbang para bumaba ang presyo ng kuryente. Sabi nila (ng JFC) basta wag daw munang amendahin ang Epira.

Pero paulit-ulit naming tinatanong ng mga senador kung ano ba talaga ang ayaw nila jan. Pero ang sagot nila lagi ay malapit ng maprivatize ang Napocor sa katapusang nitong taon kaya’t bakit pa kelangang baguhin ang mga regulasyon. Tinanong sila kung nabasa nila, kasi 60 pages ang amended Epira, pero mukhang hindi. Ang sagot nila ay wala dahil ang mga technical consultants nila ay wala dito.

In my view, they are afraid that the amended Epira will visit or discuss all over again the very notorious IPP contracts where the foreigners are involved. The IPPs are independent power producers; the main power producer in our country is the government through the Napocor. But because of the brownout, Ramos signed contracts with the IPPs at exorbitant costs; and still, we are operating under that legacy. That’s one of the reasons why the price of electricity is very very high.

Under an IPP contract, there is no risk that the investor takes. We are already paying it the capacity service fee and operation and maintenance fee so how come may take-or-pay pa. Binabayaran natin lahat ng ginagamit nila at paggawa nila ng kuryente e bakit pag hindi nating gagamtin ang kuryente pababayarin pa rin tayo? Hindi tama yun. That’s why the public are up in arms against the IPP contracts. I suspect that the evasiveness of the foreign investors today indicate that they do not want to reveal the real reason, which is they don’t want the amended Epira to even mention the IPP contracts.

Nakakasuspetsa talaga kung ano ang angulo nito. Ang angulo natin ay ipagtanggol natin ang ating mga consumer na Pilipino. Ang angulo nila ay gumawa sila ng tubo. Wala namang masama dun kaya natin kinumbida sila e, pero wag naman sana sa pamamagitan nitong mga IPP.

There’s no provision of IPPs on the amended Epira. I think that they are just speculating on fear that maybe someone will stand up during the debates and propose such a position.

Can Congress remove the onerous provision on the take-or-pay?

That’s already part of the amended Epira. That’s what they are afraid of.

With respect to existing contracts we will respect that until the expiration date of that particular contract. We are talking of future IPP contracts.

I think their apology is only an indication that the letter was precipitate, was impulsive; it was an immediate reflex of people who are used to dictating to developing countries our own economic policies. Many of our lawmakers today have been schooled in their very universities and colleges so we’re just reflecting what we’ve learned. Now that we are an independent nation, why is it being held against us that we are able to think for ourselves?

On the conflict of interest that some of the members of the JFC are also partners of local power producers

Yes, they themselves admit it. I said, how can you be so sure that we should not patch Epira, because according to you, power generation will soon be subjected to open access—that is, we can now buy our electricity not only from Napocor but other IPPs. But how can you be so sure that there will be enough IPPs since the law today requires that there should be 70% privatization of Napocor before we can allow open access, before we can allow any power producer to present itself in the market. There are no foreign bidders in Napocor, there are only local bidders and then immediately one of them said, “Ah, we have a big investment in First Gen.” So you see, the foreigners are interested in making profits out of the IPPs, that is the real reason that’s why we’re going around in circles.

They will be called back on the hearings of the anti-trust law. Anti-trust means prevention in monopolies of trade. I am very happy at least the foreigners have been given forewarning at least on the part of the Senate not to dictate our economic policies, not to raise unfounded fears and not to speak in generalities. If only out of courtesy, they should specify what exactly it is that is hurting them in the proposed amended Epira.

Tama lang ba na pagalitan ang mga opisyal ng JFC?

E kung may rason naman kasi. Kung hindi natin itataas ang boses natin sa dayuhan maski mali ang ginagawa mamaya aapakan nalang nila tayo. I think yun yung punto ni Sen. Enrile. He is very capable of exploding, just like me.

They (representatives of the foreign chambers of commers) were very cooperative except that their answers were evasive, they were non-responsive. You cannot blame a witness for trying to get out of a sticky situation.

Can we afford the consequences of displaying our pride?

This is not just mere pride; this is really an assertion of independence from foreigners. We all want you to come here and invest in our country, but please respect our legal system. That’s the point we are trying to make.

Investors watching the hearing will understand that the Senate is responsive to the needs of the times. We cannot calcify into rock the old Epira law because they are more comfortable with it. We are not concerned with the welfare of foreign investors in that way. Our highest concern is the welfare of the Filipino consumer. If those two welfares coincide then we are very happy. If not, then we’ll simply prioritize lower priced power cost.

Can President Arroyo use her emergency powers if the present economic crisis worsens?

The economic crisis is out of our hands, it is being caused by the higher price of oil and by the international food shortage. There is nothing we can do. We are not an isolated island where all of these things are just happening to us. These are world wide afflictions on the entire poor community of the world. If that is the case, upon proper findings, the president, may of course properly exercise her emergency powers but she should adhere strictly to the conditions of the constitution and the Senate will be the first to protest if she does it prematurely.

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
12 December 2007

On the survey results that President Arroyo is the most corrupt Philippine president

I am filing a resolution, possibly by tomorrow morning, to investigate not only the particular survey firm but all major survey firms that have their results published in the media. I would like to know 1) who pays for these surveys. I am not buying to the claim that these surveys are not commissioned. Who is funding them? You cannot just conduct a professional scientific survey without funding. So how come these survey firms claim that they are not commissioned? Do you really mean to tell me that a private commercial company, meaning to say a profit company will take the bother and expense of taking a survey and losing money for the effort just to gain a headline? That does not make business sense.

And 2) I am not about to be inveigled to the belief that these survey results are accurate. Apart from the usual criticisms of accuracy of surveys, I don’t that any right-minded scientific professional survey firm will conduct a one-sided survey. There will always be a positive part of the survey. For example, it may ask “Who is the most corrupt president?” but it should ask also “Who do you think is the most successful economically among the presidents we’ve had?”

My unconfirmed report is that a member of the opposition commissioned the survey and was able to convince a major daily to use it as a banner headline. This is not a coincidence. Also, I would like to know how these survey firms support themselves, for normally it by soliciting patrons from the business world, but generally they do not concentrate on politics. In other countries you will find that survey firms are active only during actual campaigns, and they try as much as possible to objective, that is to say present two sides to issue so that they can elicit credibility. I know for a fact, as a public official and as an ordinary citizen, that these surveys are not highly thought of precisely because they are so biased in their reporting.

There is a specific name circulating among administration allies. We were exchanging news and information this morning in the CA hearing. Word does get around; you cannot keep this under wraps. Someone will always tell who was the person who was behind a certain survey.

All you have to do is sit and think for one second: who is the right-minded person who will go out of his way to conduct a scientifically-accepted survey with all the expense it incurs without being paid for it? Possibly the churches, whose motives will not be suspect. Or the academics, because they are known to do these foolhardy ventures (in a business sense). Otherwise, a commercial company will not undertake this kind of non-profit activity.

I am outraged as an ordinary reader or part of the audience that I should be presented with biased and one-sided news.

Could he/she be a former president?

This survey firm has always been associated with a former president. I would not say that there is a direct connection between that former president and this firm. I do know however that there is an opposition figure who commissioned the survey and paid the firm… He is very slippery. It (the survey) does serve the purpose of the opposition to put President Arroyo down.

On the Powercom hearing tomorrow

At the hearing of the JCPC tomorrow, we will look into 1) the explanation for the auction and sale of the EDC, and its possible illegality; 2) the accusations hurled by the opposition against the validity of the auction to the successful bidder of Transco; and 3) the accusations recently made by a congressman of alleged overpricing of coal on the part of NAPOCOR.

-o0o-

Excerpts from Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

18 September 2007

It seems to me that this young man’s behavior is contrary to human nature. He lost in the bidding. The normal reaction is to ask for a re-bidding if you really think that the winning bid was not pursuant to the specifications and if you really think that your own bid would have been better for the country. But instead of making a only a cursory denial, or denunciation of the successful bidder, he is raining automatic gunfire on almost everybody in sight. He is trying to annihilate everybody who has a direct connection with President Arroyo. That is why I say that his behavior is bizarre. And you cannot help but reach the conclusion that he is merely a stool pigeon, he is speaking for a political group that is trying to scandalize the administration.

Who is he speaking for? He is always in the media. The level of political noise he is making is extremely high. You and I know that you won’t get this kind of publicity just making allegations without any proof at all. So this must be a very expensive campaign. My question is: who is funding young this man?

If he is a genuine oppositor, if he is bent on exposing corruption in government, he should have presented his evidence long ago. Instead, he is concentrating on making sensational statements. Where are his witnesses? Or where are the papers that at least implicate these figures? He is a loose cannon but he is not as wild as he seems to be. I think he is merely fronting for a group whose ultimate goal is to create political instability so that President Arroyo will be removed before her term officially ends in 2010, and install another. I have some idea who this “other” is, but again, unlike this person I am criticizing, I’m a trained lawyer. I don’t want to name names unless I have at least some semblance of proof.

[This issue] has to be diligently and conscientiously investigated by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. We cannot all just jump when someone makes a sensational statement. We have to show the public that a Senate Committee investigation is a serious, solemn discharge of duty. Whenever any person makes an allegation, he must be immediately asked to produce at least prima facie, the barest minimum, evidence, to support his claims. Otherwise, all Senate Committee hearings here will be nothing but sensationalist circus.

I want to ask the person why is it that he has never answered the objections or criticisms of his bid, or the justifications presented for the winning bid. In the first place, his corporation is charged with being a mere shell. There is nothing inside. It had an original capital of some Php 300,000.00 according to the certificate of registration issued at the SEC. It had a paid up capital of some Php 300,000 and an authorized capital of Php 5M. And he is trying to pursue half a billion’s worth of public funds. How on earth could you have possibly justified his qualifications? He doesn’t even try to prove his qualifications. He is on a warpath. He is on a bloodbath. We will have to make that young man answer if he is lying to the committee.

He is accusing high public officials of graft and corruption, a misbehavior punishable under the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He is making a criminal accusation against them. That certainly, if not accompanied by a modicum of proof, can be libelous. He enjoys no parliamentary immunity… this young man, I am sure, will be facing libel charges or charges of inciting to sedition.

I’m sure that he will be called again, and I hope that by that time, senators will be bent on placing the onus or burden of proof on the accuser, not on the accused. That is the way our judicial or legal system works.

I have advantage over other senators because I have received background information on him. He is not a mere disgruntled bidder. The mere fact that this is so highly publicized and that the angle has always been “who has been corrupt in the Arroyo administration?” … (means that) a lot of money has been spent.

-o0o-

News Release

18 September 2007

MIRIAM: WHO’S FUNDING JOEY?

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that Jose de Venecia III, the accuser in the controversial NBN (National Broadband Network) deal, has to explain what group he is representing, and said she suspects that it is not only his own corporation, AHI (Amsterdam Holdings, Inc.), which lost in the bidding.

“He lost the bid, but he is not even trying for a rebidding. Instead, he is spraying automatic gunfire on the First Gentleman, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo, Comelec Commissioner Benjamin Abalos, and DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza. This is exceedingly strange,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that she “smells a plot” intended to scandalize President Arroyo, and to create intrigue between her and Jose de Venecia, Jr., Speaker of the House and father of the accuser.

“The political noise has reached a very high decibel level. Producing that kind of noise is very expensive. So where is the money coming from?” she said.

Santiago said that it is possible that the accuser, Joey de Venecia is funded by a group that wants to oust President Arroyo before 2010 and to install someone else.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that he who alleges must prove. We have to conduct a background check on the accuser. Like a good detective story, the Senate hearings should be able to determine what his motive is, and who is funding him, if any,” the senator said.

On the alleged participation in the transaction by the First Gentleman, Santiago said that if it is not satisfactorily explained, it might be difficult to get Senate approval on the 2008 budget on which the Senate is already conducting public hearings.

“That’s got to be the shocker of the month. Someone is telling a very big lie. Which party is peddling the lie will hold the key to Senate approval of the loan,” she said.

Santiago, Senate finance committee vice-chair, said that the NBN project can be completed only with congressional approval through next year’s budget.

“The public officials involved should stop acting as if this were a done deal. It is not, and it is Congress which will have final say,” she said.

Santiago explained that congressional approval is necessary, since the NBN project would create a future debt for the country, which would require payment by the national treasury.
Santiago said that there are five steps that should be taken for the project to be considered completed.

First, the budget department has to issue a FOA, meaning Forward Obligational Authority.

Second, the Office of the President has to issue full powers to the finance department.

Third, the finance department, on behalf of the Philippine government, has to enter into the loan agreement.

Fourth, the Monetary Board has to approve the loan.

Fifth and finally, Congress has to approve the loan through the 2008 budget or the Annual Appropriations Act, in the exercise of the constitutional power to approve the budget prepared by the Office of the President.

Santiago said that her finance subcommittee will conduct a public hearing on the budget for the Office of the President this Friday, September 21, and she will ask the Malacañang representative if the proposed budget includes anticipated payments for the foreign debt that the NBN loan will involve.

-o0o-

Breaking News

10 October 2006

GMA CERTIFIES URGENT ANTI-BILLBOARD BILL

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has certified as urgent Senate Bill No. 2482, “An Act Regulating the Placement of Billboard Signs” also known as “The Anti-Billboard Blight Act,” filed and sponsored by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago.

Santiago has already delivered the sponsorship speech for the bill, and has requested majority leader Sen. Francis Pangilinan to give it priority in the floor debates when the Senate resumes session on November 6.
“It was force majeure (an act of God) that toppled all those killer billboards. It was the finger of God pointing at crass materialism. It is time to put a stop to worship of the golden calf of corporate greed, and to return to basic community values,” Santiago said.

The senator praised President Arroyo “for her courageous leadership and responsive sensitivity to public outrage and public demand for safety and aesthetics in our highways.”

The Santiago bill places a strict ban on the following billboards, which are prohibited:

• Those that obstruct or obscure the view of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, in such a manner as to endanger their movement;
  
  
• Those that impair any scenic vista from the highway;
  
  
• Those located in residential zones;
  
  
• Those placed on any public property, telephone or utility poles, or natural features such as trees and rocks;
  
  
• Those erected above the roof of any buildings;
  
  
• Those that obstruct the windows or doorways of adjacent buildings.
  

In addition to the ban on certain billboards, the Santiago bill requires 1,000 feet distance of any billboard from any interchange, right-of-way, street intersection, or any of the following: historical site, school, church, hospital, retirement or nursing home, cemetery, governmental building, public parks, playground, recreation areas, and convention centers.

The Santiago bill limits the size of any billboard to 300 sq. ft., and limits the height to 50 ft., measured from ground level to the highest point of the billboard.

Further, the Santiago bill raises the annual fee for a billboard permit for a new construction to P7,500.

The bill orders the DPWH, in coordination with the MMDA, to use the permit fees to conduct a thorough countrywide inventory of all billboards, including plotting the exact location of each sign, and determining whether or not each sign has a valid permit from the DPWH, MMDA, or any local government agency.

The bill allows the Department of Tourism to construct official business directional signs, but requires DOT to consult with scenic conservation groups, so that the billboards will not have a deleterious impact on the traveling public.

The bill will become effective 15 days after publication.

-o0o-