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

On the case of Jalosjos

This is bizarre. This is highly unusual that there were certain documents purporting to authorize the release of a convict and then the highest authorizing person, the President, denied any veracity to the release of the convict. In the first place, in constitutional terms, the power to extend executive clemency belongs completely to the President and is completely discretionary. If she wants to grant it, she can. If the order has not yet been implemented or executed she can withdraw. But in this case, she President is saying that she never issued an order.

Is issue then is not merely whether his (Jalosjos’) sentence has been commuted, or that he could be released this year or some other time, but where did these documents come from? And if the Presidents says that she never authorized them, then who authorized them? That is fraud on the public, particularly on the prisoner, because his expectations were raised, and that is a very cruel joke to play on somebody.

The issue here is who authorized the documents, because clearly he was acting outside of his jurisdiction. In the second place, if there were signatures on the documents pertaining to the release, then either those signatures were authentic and those who signed are criminally liable for excess or abuse of authority; or, if the signatures were forged, then it was a public forgery, and should therefore investigated by the NBI.

On moving to bypass DOE Sec. Angelo Reyes in the Commission on Appointments

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and I have jointly signed a letter informing the Senate President that we both intend, in plenary session of the Commission on Appointments, to evoke Section 20 of the CA Rules. On the part of Senator Estrada, [his] basis for the veto will be that when his father was Commander in Chief, Sec. Reyes, who was then AFP Chief of Staff, have broken the chain of command. In my case, I simply believe that he is unfit for the office. I am against this practice of rewarding military officials for breaking the law in favor of one presidential personality against another, rewarding them with a series of government posts for which his educational background or training have never prepared him. I am squarely against the attitude that a military general can be given any civilian position regardless of his background. In government we must giver authority who are capable of assuming the responsibility by, among other things, academic preparation for the subject.

I am an administration senator, but I must take a position on the role of the military in civilian affairs because we have a tendency to glamorize the military as if they are the source of all political knowledge in the country. This is not so. Sovereignty resides in the people, not in the military.

-o0o-

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-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

24 January 2007

On the JPEPA hearings:

There is no point conducting any activity in the legislative process, unless there is a reasonable chance that within 9 days the process can be completed. Under the rules, when the new Congress comes in, it replaces entirely the old Congress, and no matter what the stage of the proceedings, a bill that is pending has to go through the entire process beginning from step one, which is we have to refile bill. In the case of the JPEPA, I might be accused of railroading the bill if I try to have voting on it—that is, to collapse the whole process—in just nine days, in competition with the other priority items in the agenda of the Senate. That is why we have mutually agreed with the Majority Leader that we shall have no JPEPA activity and leave it to the next Congress. Presumably I will still be Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. If that will be the case, the JPEPA will be the highest priority when we resume sessions in July.

On Gov. Chavit Singson’s visit to the Senate following Senator Jinggoy Estrada’s privilege speech last Tuesday:

I understand that it came as a reaction to the privilege speech directed against him. I do not want to see that kind of precedent because that would mean that there might be a chilling effect on senators who don’t have the physical courage to face people who are directly affected. Those senators, who deliver privilege speeches mentioning certain people in a negative sense, must take responsibility for their actions. But the provision of the Constitution is that they must be held to account before their own peers, not before the persons they are attacking. Hence, that would be a diminution of the concept of parliamentary immunity. People like that are allowed to come and debate a senator in his own office. They have to have respect, not necessarily to the senator, but to the Senate as an institution. So I am afraid that I do not approve of the visit because it could have led to more adverse consequences: they could have come to blows, etc. The only remedy there is to allege in court that the remarks were outside in the discharge of official functions. His actions might be misinterpreted as abuse of the powers of an incumbent administration. Whether administration or opposition, if the leaders are subjected to accusations or even attacks by senators, then simply they have to respect the constitutional provision on the parliamentary immunity of a senator.

On the Iloilo raid:

I thought that it is a disproportionate use of force to carry out what may have been a lawful intent. But the means does not justify the ends. They could just have used, for example, tear gas, or they could have turned off the electricity and water. They could not have resorted to that degree of violence.

-o0o-