Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

On today’s Senate foreign relations committee hearing

The resource panel synonymously endorsed Senate concurrence with two groups of treaties. One group consisted of the Mutual Legal Assistance treaties. This means that in criminal proceedings, the Philippines together with other country will perform certain services, if necessary, in connection with a criminal proceeding in that other country. For example, if they are looking for some witnesses, certain documents, if they want to see certain assets in the criminal proceeding in that country.

The resource panel also unanimously recommended concurrence with the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaties. There are already 36 of such treaties, so I foresee this will be easily concurred in by the Senate. They are very non-controversial. It will encourage foreign direct investment because a capitalist will not come to the Philippines if his income will be taxed both in his home country and in the Philippines . We will have to forego or waive the taxes on that foreigner, but in compensation, that foreigner will be encouraged to provide foreign direct investment here. We are just following the path we already set with the 36 other Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaties.

The RP-Spain MLAT is different in a sense that even if the act which is involved in the proceedings does not constitute a crime in the Philippines , still the Philippines will be obliged to provide legal assistance. That is not a provision in the other treaties. But, I also noted that sometimes this is the result of negotiations. We cannot really have our own way all the time during the negotiation process. It doesn’t really bother me as long as the DFA will give me a written memorandum explaining why Spain took that recalcitrant stand. Possibly, they said either you include this provision or we don’t have a treaty. Sometimes we have good grounds based on their own peculiar circumstances.

On the Powercom hearing on Monday (12 May 2008)

I expect it to be a battle of titans. I will ask Mr. Winston Garcia of the GSIS to enumerate as briefly as possible the ways in which he thinks Meralco has been mismanaged such as to result in very high electricity rates. The JCPC or Powercom is not really concerned with the ownership issue. That is the business of business. But we in the JCPC are concerned with the issue of very high electricity rates. Pitong taon na ang ating Epira na gumawa ng pagbabago sa ating industriya ng kuryente, pero pagkatapos ng pitong taon, hindi pa rin nakamit yung tanging layunin na ibaba ang binabayad sa kuryente. Ibig sabihin lahat kami ay failure. Epira is a failure. The Senate is a failure. The executive branch is a failure.

Bakit? Dahil ang Meralco, dapat pasabugin iyan. Pugad iyan ng mga sindikato. Mas grabe pa iyan sa Bureau of Customs. Baka hindi alam iyan ng may-ari. Yun ang basehan kung bakit sinabi ng ibang senador na Meralco lang ang makakapagpatakbo sa Meralco. Ang ibig sabihin lang niyan ay napakaraming pasikot-sikot diyan. That is a conglomeration of mafias. I am sure, although I may not have the evidence, that there is a crime involved. That is a crime of a combination of a restraint in trade or monopoly. That is punishable under the Penal Code.

In America , ang anti-trust laws nila ay isang buong encyclopedia. Sa atin, isang provision lang ng Penal Code, hindi pa ginagamit ng Department of Justice. Maybe it is time that the DOJ made an example of Meralco employees and officials. I am not particularly talking about the Lopez group, they are simply the owners. Sometimes the owner just participates in the profits and allows other people to run their business. But, from the way we have seen how Epira cannot effectively lower the price of electricity, I am reasonably certain that there are criminal syndicates operating in Meralco, and they are all punishable for violating the Penal Code against combinations in the restraint of trade.

Sinasabi ng iba na ang kuryente na binibili niya hindi lamang sa Napocor kundi sa iba pang independent power producers (IPP) na pag-aari rin pala ng Meralco. Kaya binibilhan niya ang sarili din niya. That is self-dealing. That is inimical to the public interest, apart from being a criminal offense.

Maliban diyan, may isa pang batikos. Lahat daw ng materyales sa industriya ng kuryente ay binibili ng Meralco sa kumpanya ng pag-aari rin niya. Ang mga poste, electrical wiring, electric meters, and all other components of the delivery system for electric power. Tingnan natin ang mga batikos. So far, all we have are accusations.

Basically all these accusations are intended to wrest control of Meralco, and it is no concern of ours here in the Powercom. Our concern here is very basic: Bakit napakamahal ng kuryente?

Ipalista natin kay Mr. Garcia o sa kanyang representative ang lahat ng argumento niya, at makikita natin diyan kung ano ang dahilan kung bakit mataas ang presyo ng kuryente, at pagkatapos ay ipasagot natin sa Meralco. Sa ganoong paraan, makikita natin who is making more sense.

Plus, mayroong mga lupon sa electric power industry na nagmamaniobra na hanggang ngayon na ang ating kuryente ay manggaling sa coal, dahil ang laki ng ipinapatong nila kung magbenta sila ng coal sa Napocor. Titingnan din natin iyan pagkatapos nito. Kaya maari na ang imbestigasyon sa Senado sa Lunes ay matutuloy sa kasunod pang Lunes tungkol naman sa coal.

Ang resulta nito ay lalagyan natin ng proper provisions ang Epira law, which is in the process now of being amended by the Senate.

Malipat man natin ang pag-aari o pagpapatakbo ng Meralco galing sa pribadong kamay papunta sa gobyerno, meron ba tayong garantiya na magiging mas maganda ang pagpapatakbo nito o magiging mas mababa ng presyo ng kuryente, dahil kung bababa agad ang presyo ng kuryente, lahat tayo at kami sa Powercom ay pabor na magkaroon ng ownership o management takeover. There is no such guarantee, kasi maski sinong commissioner mo diyan, talagang kikita at kikita ang mga sindikato kasi matagal na sila doon at mahirap silang kuwestiyunin. Marami silang pera kaya sisiraan nila agad ang bagong tagahawak ng sistema nila hanggang magresign na lang ang pobre. Kaya dapat diyan sana , meron tayong administrator ng Meralco who is very street smart. Otherwise he will only be an office technocrat and he will definitely fail the expectations of the public. We need a graftbuster.

13 February 2008

MIRIAM URGES SWITCH TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on energy, today delivered her sponsorship urging the Senate to pass the proposed Renewable Energy Act of 2008.
Although there is no internationally accepted definition, Santiago defined renewable energy as “energy which comes from a source not depleted by use, constantly replenished, and never runs out.”

She said that according to the International Energy Agency, renewables include combustible renewables and wastes, hydro power, geothermal, solar, wind, wide, wave or ocean, and hydrogen.

“Renewable energy has become the buzzword of the day, because its potential for use is very large, exceeding all other readily available sources. Investment capital flowing into renewable energy climbed from $80 billion in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006,” she said.
Santiago argued for the Senate to pass the bill immediately, because it will contribute to world energy supply security, reduce dependence on fossil fuel resources, and provide opportunities for mitigating greenhouse gases.

“The renewable energy market could increase fast enough to replace and initiate the decline of fossil fuel dominance. Renewables are gaining credence among private investors as having the potential to grow into the next big industry,” she said.

Santiago pointed out that the proposed Renewable Energy Act introduces into the Philippines the Renewable Portfolio Standard which requires electricity suppliers to get an agreed portion of their energy supply from renewable energy.

The bill also creates the Renewable Energy Market, which will be a sub-market in the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market under the EPIRA law.

It also provides the Green Energy Option (GEO), empowering end users to select their electricity requirements sources from renewable energy sources.

Among the incentives offered by the bill for GEO certified developers of renewable energy facilitators are VAT exemption, duty-free exemption, tax credit on domestic capital equipment and services, caps on realty tax rates, and income tax holiday exemption, among others.

Similar incentives are offered to manufacturers, fabricators, and suppliers of locally produced equipment and products for renewable energy facilities.

The bill creates the National Renewable Energy Board, and establishes the Renewable Energy Trust Fund.

“The bill will bestow the benefits of energy security, lower energy prices, particularly electricity rates, sustainable investment, and a healthier community,” Santiago said.

She said that the country could save P200 billion in fuel purchases, P 22 billion in costs due to the harmful effect of conventional fossil fuel-fed power plant emissions, P9 billion in carbon credits, P67 billion from the creation of wealth from renewable energy-based plants.

-End-

THE LEGISLATIVE ENERGY AGENDA, AFTER DAVOS 2008
Speech delivered in the Energy Summit, on 31 January 2008,
at the SMX Convention Center of the Mall of Asia in Pasay City

By

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
Chair, Senate Committee on Energy
Chair, Joint Congressional Power Commission

Fixed Principles of Energy Industry

I have just returned with President Arroyo and the rest of the Philippine delegation from the World Economic Forum 2008 in Davos, Switzerland. The delegation then proceeded to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. This speech is a result of those trips.

There is no longer any debate that the world is entering a period of energy dislocation and, for some communities, the period of energy poverty. This development has been brought about by four trends:

• Trend 1. High fossil fuel prices;

• Trend 2. Growing concern about energy security. Because oil and gas resources are concentrated in a few countries, understandably they use their energy riches as an instrument of foreign policy. With the rise of petrodollar-based sovereign wealth funds, such countries are pursuing more proactive investment strategies. Countries in the Persian Gulf now control more than $1 trillion. One of the reasons for this recent foreign trip was to pursue bilateral energy deals. And one of the consequences of that trip is for Congress to intensify efforts for resource self-sufficiency;

• Trend 3. Growing social concern about both the local and global environments;

• Trend 4. Technology innovation, which has attracted global investment in renewable and alternative energy, now standing at more than $100 billion per year;

These four factors are related and taken together produce a complex interdependency, meaning, that there are tradeoffs. For example, coal is an economic energy source but it is also the single biggest source of manmade carbon emissions. Thus, coal as an energy source now has to contend with the phenomenon of climate change.

With these complex and interdependent trends, Mr. John Browne has recommended certain fixed principles, as follows:

Principle 1 is flexibility, meaning the ability to adapt and to respond quickly to change. The Philippines will not prosper by betting only on the biofuels options. Although I was the Senate author and sponsor of the Biofuels Act of 2007, I insist that our country should maintain a portfolio of options. For example, wind has a clear advantage for our country, because of our favorable weather, strong demand, and developing transmission systems.

Principle 2 is the ability to work in collaborative networks. Our work in government must be connected in multiple ways to the work of NGOs, business companies, consumers, and the Philippine public. We in government are fully aware that we bear the burden of helping design the fiscal and regulatory policies that will drive new energy investments.

Principle 3 is energy efficiency, which will play a starring role in the energy future. Every business should put in place an energy efficiency plan covering the entire spectrum of business activities: operations, supply chains, and workforce behavior. For example, the Philippine airline industry can improve its fuel efficiency by more direct routings, more efficient taxiing on the ground, and less idle time queuing for takeoff slots.

Principle 4 is making carbon a mainstream economic cost for business. There is a global momentum building behind carbon pricing policy, notably in Europe and key American states. As Chair of the Senate Energy Committee, I plan to file a Carbon Pricing Act. Tomorrow, I will discuss at a Bureau of Customs seminar the prospect of a global agreement to succeed the Kyoto Treaty, with strengthened carbon measures. What carbon pricing bill the Congress will enact will be a source of the greatest uncertainty in energy law. My bill will provide for compensatory measures, because the costs of pricing carbon will hit some groups disproportionately, such as poorer people or energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

We have to bite the bullet on the thorny political-economic question of: “Who pays?” To reduce dependence on fossil fuels is a burden that should be shared. It will need an act of real political leadership to pass an aggressive carbon law, which will require that we should put society as a whole above sectional politics. This is the best way to survive this period of energy dislocation.

Food or Fuel: Food Security and Biofuel Production

The United Nations has predicted that the global population will rise above 9 billion by 2050. This will place additional pressure on the global food supply, particularly for a developing country like the Philippines. Our country is characterized by an increasing demand for protein-rich foods which require more water to produce, and more available agricultural land. This is why food prices are likely to increase.

The Philippines joined the global bandwagon for biofuel production by adopting the Biofuels Act of 2007. Obviously, this law aims to reduce carbon emission and dependence on imported sources of energy. I do not understand why certain people refuse to accept that the dynamics of the energy economy will be introduced into global food markets. But I will not go into that now. Instead, I wish to point out that there are at least two complex tradeoffs between biofuel production and food security, as follows:

• Tradeoff 1. The question of national equity: Any shift from food production to biofuel production will have certain consequences for certain communities. While crop exporters may benefit, crop importers may suffer, including agricultural communities which import grain as feeds for animals. In fact, those who might suffer the most in the long run of biofuel production might be the poorer communities where food bought on the open market is a major component of overall expenditures.

• Tradeoff 2. The question of global efficiency and perception of energy security. Global efficiency is best served by market-determined allocation of crop resources globally to food, and biofuels based on price and relative environmental efficiency. But concerns over energy security may undermine the attractiveness of global collaboration. Not all techniques for manufacturing biofuels are equally efficient in terms of reducing aggregate carbon emissions. Biofuels should be pursued not only under a global imperative to reduce carbon emissions, but more importantly, under a national security imperative.

Limits to Energy Price Resiliency

In the report submitted to the World Economic Forum entitled “Global Risks 2008,” experts said: “The global economy has demonstrated remarkable resiliency to increases in energy prices since 2004. But the limits of resiliency may be close to being reached.”

The WEF Global Risk Networks, which prepared the report, warned that there is a conflict between the objectives of secure, reasonably priced energy on the one hand, and reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases on the other hand. We see this conflict in the following ways:

• Coal, the only cheap, widely available fossil fuel, is linked with carbon emissions;
  

• Oil reserves are located in regions of geopolitical instability;
  

• Gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, is difficult to transport;
  

• Nuclear power is probably the best option for carbon-neutral energy from the perspective of currently available technology. But nuclear power continues to cause anxiety, given the problems of waste disposal, fear of nuclear accidents, and questions on the desirability of the global spread of nuclear technologies;
  

• Green technologies, such as wind power and biofuel, have their own problems, notably problems of scale. The use of crops for biofuel may promote greater insecurity for other global resources, namely, food and water.
  

Fighting Climate Change with Nuclear Power

Over 30 countries already have a functioning nuclear industry: Europe, the United States, China, India, and Russia. Other states are exploring the nuclear power option, among them: Turkey, Vietnam, and Egypt.

The benefits of nuclear power are as follows:

• CO2-free power generation
  
• Reliability
  
• Low per-unit direct cost to consumers.
  

However, the risks of nuclear energy are as follows:

• Environmental pollution resulting from spent-fuel disposal
  
• Potential dual use, meaning both civilian and military, associated with fuel enrichment
  
• Safety concerns for the integrity of nuclear power plants
  
• Difficult control over nuclear fuel inventories
  

The problem with nuclear power is that it raises the issue of how to safeguard the nuclear fuel development and distribution process. Furthermore, current weapons and nuclear stockpiles must be comprehensibly inventoried and monitored. The world will have to repatriate highly enriched uranium and replace it with low enriched uranium. At present, six states produce enriched uranium on a commercial basis: France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States. These six countries could block the efforts of other countries to explore a national capacity for nuclear energy.

The primary motivator for the Philippines to consider nuclear power is energy security and diversifying away from fossil power generation. But in the global context, this will require multilateral arrangements that will assure supply. Nuclear power also puts in question the effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And, we have to consider the true costs of nuclear energy, because it will be reliant on state support. We also have to consider liability and antiterrorist cover, radioactive waste storage, international monitoring, and research and development costs. For these reasons, I do not foresee a nuclear energy bill in the Senate, or a so-called “nuclear renaissance,” in the near future.

Senate Energy Agenda

For sometime now, we have began the new era of energy reevaluation. Most recently, rising demand, particularly from China and India, has nearly doubled the price of benchmark crudes, with proportional increases for natural gas and other energy products. Oil futures markets indicate that prices will continue to remain within a significantly higher range. This being the case, a developing economy and energy-importing country like the Philippines will be hit the hardest. Experts say that on average, 1.6 percent of total revenues in countries like ours are already being lost. Higher oil prices also delay the transition from environmentally destructive usage of biomass fuels such burning wood toward gas, kerosene, and electricity.

With a higher price environment, we can expect the Senate to discuss measures such as the following:

• Provide incentives for clean coal technologies. But because higher volumes of conventional coal usage would greatly accelerate carbon emissions, it will be a high priority goal of the Senate to develop clean air technologies that are both effective and affordable;

In the long-term, the Senate will have to extend the nuclear option on a need-driven and affordable basis. I have already discussed the pros and cons of nuclear energy. I do not see it on the radar screen in the short-term. However, nuclear power does not contribute to climate change. Hence, we have time to put in place safeguards against nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and industrial accidents;

• Place a premium on alternative fuel bills, specially substitutes for gasoline or diesel in motor vehicles. Our recent law has placed climate-neutral biomass fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel in a more competitive position. However, agricultural tariffs still pose a barrier to global markets;

• Increase the efficiency of biomass fuel use, and promote the use of modern fuels, such as kerosene and LPG, for meeting the cooking needs of the poor;

• Increase access to efficient stoves for both biomass and modern fuels;

• Subsidize capital costs for rural grid electrification, and develop off-grid solutions to providing energy services;

• Target subsidies to access, not to consumption;

• Remove market barriers to trade in kerosene, LPG, biomass fuels, and charcoal, for meeting the cooking needs of the poor;

• Provide supportive regulatory policies for meeting the need for energy services other than cooking; in particular, to make financially sustainable the expansion of access to electricity by poor households.

Our vision on climate change should include tighter government regulation regarding fuel quality, plant emissions, and safety. Unfortunately, these concerns will entail further costs to the energy industry and the Filipino consumer.

After the World Economic Forum 2008, we have to accept the message that perceptions of global risks and priorities are changing with extreme rapidity. In fact, it is said that insuring against business interruption has become more expensive than property insurance.

Former certainties about cheap energy and its environmentally risk-free consumption have disappeared. The World Economic Forum has properly warned that: “In a rapidly changing world, the very fundamentals of energy – price, availability, security, acceptability – stand in need of constant and careful reevaluation. In the national debate on alternative energy sources, there is no room for opinionated legislators.

In conclusion, I have to issue a gentle reminder to the non-lawyers in Congress that under R.A. No. 3019, also known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, it is a crime for any Congress member, “during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him.” If he does possess such an interest, he should divest himself of that interest within 30 days after approval of the bill. This is a friendly reminder from a concerned lawyer who has no political plans for 2010.

-End-

16 January 2008

SENATE MULLS LAND USE POLICY

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate energy committee, said that in order to heed the warning of Nobel laureates against indiscriminate biofuel development, a newly created bicameral oversight committee will hold a public hearing on the impact of biofuel farming on land use policy.

Santiago said that the committee might also consider a possible “windfall tax” on absentee landlords with large tracts of land.

“The 2008 budget already contains an appropriation of P10 million in order to constitute the Biofuels Oversight Committee, of which I shall be co-chair with Rep. Mikey Arroyo, who is House energy committee chair,” Santiago said.

She said that it was “rude and peevish” to attack Nobel Prize laureates for cautioning against the rush to biofuel development at the expense of food security.

The three Nobel Prize winners are: Dr. Harmut Michel, Yuan Lee, and Paul Crutzen.
“To anyone with a proper sense of humility, in case of doubt, the presumption should be in favor of the opinion of a Nobel laureate in science. In this case, at least three laureates have issued the same warning. The debate on food versus fuel is not political or legal, but scientific. This means that the national policy issue involved is land use, not capitalist profits which will certainly be made by either side of the controversy,” the senator said.

Santiago said that when she was defending the Biofuels Act on the Senate floor, she received many inquiries and expressions of support from rich landowners with vast tracts of idle land or marginal land hoping to cash in on jatropha and other sources of biofuel.

“If there is a gasoline lobby against biofuel, I can say from personal experience that there is also an absentee landowner lobby for biofuel. Both sides expect to make money at the expense of the other. I have no interest, direct or indirect, in their public debate because I do not own land holdings. I am a legislator tasked with protecting the national interest,” Santiago said.

When media questioned her about debating with Sen. Miguel Zubiri who recently attacked Nobel Laureate Dr. Hartmut Michel for cautioning against indiscriminate biofuel development, Santiago said: “I have no time for that. If indeed there is a debate challenge, I plan to request Koko Pimentel to represent me. He was one of my few brilliant students in UP Law. Unlike others his age, he does not indulge in public breast-beating but devotes himself to quiet academic achievement.”

Still referring to the reported debate challenge, Santiago said: “Anyone challenging me to a publicity debate should wait a little. My granddaughter will represent me. She was born last December.”

-o0o-

14 January 2008

MIRIAM TO CONGRESS: “DECELERATE” BIOFUEL

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the powerful Joint Congressional Power Commission (JCPC) said she will write Senate President Manny Villar and Speaker Jose de Venecia to provide funds for the newly created Biofuels Oversight Committee, to ensure that “food acreage will not be prejudiced by biofuel acreage.”

Santiago was reacting to a statement in Manila last week of Dr. Hartmut Michel, 1998 Nobel prizewinner for chemistry, that biofuel development is counterproductive, because it produces little energy, compared to other alternative sources.

Ironically, Santiago was the Senate author and sponsor of the Biofuels Act signed by President Arroyo into law in January last year.

“The Biofuels Act is only a cushion for the global increase in oil prices. It is only meant to be a runup to the Renewable Energy Bill, which I will sponsor in the Senate when session opens at the end of the month,” Santiago said.

The Biofuels Act requires a minimum 1 percent biodiesel blend in diesel fuel, and 5 percent bioethanol blend in gasoline fuel, prompting business speculators to call for the conversion of riceland to sugarcane, corn, cassava, nipa, jatropha, palm, soy, grapeseed, and coconut.

“The Biofuels Oversight Committee is intended not only to ensure that the law will reduce the country’s dependence on imported oil, but also to prevent corporate greed and political opportunism from endangering food security,” Santiago said.

Santiago , chair of the Senate energy committee, said that at a recent meeting, her committee voted to adopt all the proceedings of the prior Congress, meaning that the proposed Renewable Energy Bill can go immediately without additional public hearings to the plenary session for debate.

“The Biofuels Act merely addresses energy use in the transport sector. But the renewable energy bill will cover all energy applications outside the transport sector,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that the main emphasis of the renewable energy program should not be biofuel, but hydropower, geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass power.

“Some politicians have overhyped the Biofuels Act to burnish their image, thus misleading the public. The Biofuels Act raises a serious debate on food versus biofuels in a small island country like ours,” she said.

Santiago enthusiastically supported Dr. Michel’s suggestions at the Nobel forum last week that instead of putting money in biofuel development, the government should put money in wind power.

“Biofuel is landbased, and will eventually compete with food. Because the Philippines has a small land area, biofuel production will tend to encroach on food production. Corporations are already searching for millions of hectares for jatropha alone. We have to step on the brakes and decelerate,” Santiago said.

She said that during President Arroyo’s state visit to Spain , Spanish businessmen expressed strong interest in helping the development of wind energy in the Philippines .

Santiago said that the renewable energy bill, like the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), will establish a renewable energy market and a wholesale electricity spot market.

“The renewable energy bill provide for the green energy option, which gives consumers the choice to use renewable energy, and accelerate open access,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that the renewable energy bill will provide fiscal incentives to eligible proponents such as income tax holiday, preferential realty tax rate, exemptions from import duties, and reduction of the government share from royalties.

-o0o-

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s Interview
14 December 2007

On the JPEPA

By January, on the first working week, I intend to sponsor the JPEPA, provided that I am able to convince the Japanese ambassador that we shall have a side agreement or an exchange of notes that will preclude any finding of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court. As I have said, that is the threshold question. I think we have also because more or less we have reached a consensus on the language to be employed. The main concern here is that if we substantially alter the provisions of JPEPA, then, under Japanese law, the JPEPA will have to go through the Japanese parliament or Diet all over again. Naturally, the Japanese government does not wish to do that. It is going to delay the matter maybe by a year.

So what we are trying to do is very sensitive. What we are trying to do is craft a vocabulary or a formula that would be acceptable to the Japanese government and will preclude the necessity of submitting the JPEPA all over again to the parliament, and at the same time will satisfy the constitutional requirements of our own Philippine Constitution, so that we can be safely assured that if any petition is brought to the Supreme Court, at least the question of constitutionality, we shall be upheld both on the part of the Senate and the executive branch.

I think we are nearly there because the Japanese ambassador has been very accommodating and cooperative. The formula is with me. I am trying to word it very carefully and calling on all resources of academic training so that we can meet the requirements of Japanese law and Philippine law at the same time.

With regards to the trade and industry provision, there will be no major changes, maybe just a slight amendment on the language employed. I don’t think it would cause any controversy. I think we will have a JPEPA by the first three months of the new year.

On the JCPC’s contempt charge against Transco President and CEO Arthur Aguilar

He submitted a motion for reconsideration, and under the Epira Law that grants powers and jurisdiction of the JCPC of which I am chair, then I find his explanation acceptable and will reconsider the citation for contempt. Apparently he is also very sick.

On the proposed revival of the Anti-Subversion Law

That is a step backward. Under the Anti-Subversion Law, mere membership is punishable, and that would be unconstitutional because it would impinge on the constitutionally protected right of freedom of assembly and association. Although the previous Anti-Subversion Law provided that any member could be prosecuted provided that the member is in possession of arms or in the act of calling on an uprising against the government. Nonetheless, the language is so vague that it could be justifiably accused of unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of assembly and association. Just because you are a member of a party it does not mean that you are guilty of whatever some members have committed, that would be guilt by association which has already been rejected by our Supreme Court.

I believe that the present provisions of our Penal Code on insurrection, sedition, inciting sedition, and the Anti-Terror Law or the Human Security Act already provide amply for the protection of the state against rebels and subversives. But you cannot just hail a person to detention just because you suspect him to be a subversive. That was the authority granted to law enforcers in the Anti-Subversion Law, and that is why it was repealed in 1992.

Do you think it would gain support in the Senate?

No. Considering that the Senate is opposition dominated, plus because of the constitutional issues that it raises, I don’t think it would gain any ground in the Senate or even in the House. These two chambers of the legislature are very sensitive to public opinion, and I think it is indefensible to be able to arrest and prosecute a person just because he or she is a member of a political group. That is antidemocratic.

On the Senate Committee on Energy hearing

The Renewable Energy Bill has been filed in various forms by thirteen senators, so I can already foresee a brief and happy debate in the Senate because we already have thirteen votes, meaning even before we have debated it is already sure of being passed in the Senate. We want to develop renewable energy so that we will no longer be dependent on the fluctuating price of oil. This is actually an oil independence law. We want to give incentives to people who want to develop renewable energy facilities by, for example, exempting them from tariff duties, value-added tax, giving them substantial discounts in realty taxes and income taxes. There are a lot of fiscal and non-fiscal incentives.

On the part of the consumer, the law provides for green energy option, meaning if you choose not to avail of your electricity from the standard electricity supplier which is always sourced from oil, but from a supplier that sources its energy from a renewable energy source. It provides for a discount or a tax holiday when you avail of this option. Binibigyan natin ang consumer ng karapatan para mamili kung alin ang panggagalingan ng kanilang kuryente. Kung oil, kung tumaas ang presyo ng langis, tataas rin ang presyo ng iyong kuryente. O kaya kung renewable energy sources, bibigyan ka ng diskuwento ng gobyerno o babawasan ang iyong income tax. Basically this is an incentives bill so that our country will be weaned away from total oil dependence to renewable energy. We have already agreed with the executive branch that his will be prioritized.

Can the proceeds from the sale of the government’s energy assets be used to lower electricity rates?

You can use it in that sense only if the money is turned over to the National Treasury. Remember when we sell our electricity assets, part of it will go to the government, part of it will go to the National Treasury. That part that goes to the National Treasury can be used by Congress by the President when she submits her proposed budget to subsidize oil prices.

As you have heard the PISTON president this morning, apparently this (public transportation) is an industry crying for help, and the only way you can help an oil industry-based service sector is by subsidy, either by exempting oil from the usual taxes or by government stockpiling it. He made a very radical proposal; he wants government to buy Petron, which we already sold. As I’ve pointed out yesterday, it is very important that we must reconsider and study carefully the sale of our asset kasi kapag nabenta mo na iyon, mahirap na bilhin ito muli.

I say that [subsidy] is a real possibility. Imagine, the peso-dollar parity is now almost Php40, baka bumaba pa. We cannot go back to oil regulation. That would be a step backward.

You’ll notice that there is a periodic sense in the public to change presidents whenever there is an oil price increase. Any president who is historically-conscious will make sure that the almost cyclical increases in oil prices will not affect his or her incumbency.

On Sen. Madrigal’s insistence that there is an anomaly in the Transco sale

That is for her to prove. As far as we could gather from yesterday’s JCPC hearing, there is no documented evidence of her charges. She makes these accusations, but in court you need evidence, and it could either be testimonial or documentary. You have to have a witness who has first hand knowledge that there is a subversion of the Anti-Dummy Law because in effect the charge is that there is no Razon name in any of the papers involved and he is acting through somebody else. To make that charge stick you have to present either a witness who can testify through first hand knowledge, or documentary evidence. I doubt very much if that is possible.

There is an accusation, but even from a fact-finding point of view there is no probable cause. There has to be more than mere verbal accusation. There has to be evidence to support it.

-o0o-