MIRIAM WANTS MMDA BUDGET SLASHED; SUSPECTS MMDA FUNDS TO BE USED FOR FERNANDO’S CAMPAIGN

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago today asked Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to reduce the budget of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) by P13 million.

In a letter to Enrile, Santiago said she suspects that MMDA funds will be used to support MMDA chair Bayani Fernando’s announced presidential bid. She cited as evidence Fernando’s “giant posters” around and outside Metro Manila.

“Mr. Fernando is engaged in an unlawful premature campaign, and it is highly likely that he might use the funds of the MMDA,” Santiago said.

Santiago also said that Malacañang’s version of the MMDA budget for Maintenance, Operating and Other Expenses (MOOE) was only P1..539 billion, but the House version raised it to P1.552 billion.

“I am not convinced that there are valid reasons for the increase by the House. If the MOOE increase is really necessary, the Office of the President would have included it,” the feisty senator explained.

Santiago is unimpressed with the performance of the MMDA under Fernando’s helm.

“The MMDA is not easing traffic in Metro Manila. Instead, it is merely transferring chokepoints from one place to another. It is not beautifying Metro Manila. Instead, it is merely painting conspicuous roadside houses with the colors pink and blue, which are Mr. Bayani Fernando’s signature colors,” she said.

WHY I AM OUT OF THE LOOP

By Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

I have decided to join the new majority, because it still partly consists of the administration bloc to which I belong. I have been absent and silent so far, because I am sick of diarrhea, which could be due to intestinal flu or my old amoebiasis.

I was clueless about the Senate coup. In my entire Senate career, the plotters never consulted me beforehand. Either I don’t count, or I am considered unapproachable.

Thus, when Sen. Enrile called me several times on the Sunday before the coup, I had no clue that he wished me to sign the coup resolution. I had intestinal flu, was in bed, and had requested my husband to field all my phone calls. To say that I was avoiding him is a misimpression. I do not avoid; I confront.

Immediately after the coup, Sen. Mar Roxas very kindly and gallantly invited me to join the majority. I had reservations, because I was ill and just could not deal with the unexpected development. But he was indefatigable on my behalf, and I thank him profusely.

In a jocular way, I was in a dilemma. At the start of this Congress, the Senate administration bloc allied itself with a sector of the opposition, to become part of the majority. At that time, administration senators were accused of sleeping with the enemy. Now, the administration bloc has again allied itself, but this time with a different sector of the opposition, to form the new majority. Hence, it might seem to critics that the administration bloc to which I belong has become a serial adulterer.

I caught a bad cold in New York , and brought it with me to Manila . Instead of resting, I immediately plunged into my Senate duties. Hence, at the Dela Paz hearing shown on TV, I had to stop presiding and leave, because of exhaustion from my deteriorating cold. I even cancelled at the last minute my scheduled trip to Peru with President Arroyo.

On the weekend prior to the coup, in addition to my cold, I succumbed to diarrhea. On my doctor’s advice, I took a course of antibiotics. But then I developed dizziness. And paradoxically, today when I had planned to report to the Senate, I find that my diarrhea has returned.

It is not true that I “demanded” certain committees. I had read that Sen. Enrile was calling for senators to express their committee preferences, and I complied with a brief letter. It is not true that I am feigning illness. My family physicians are Dr. Esperanza Cabral and her daughter Dr. Sandy Cabral Prodigalidad.

It is unfair and malicious to impute these and any other kind of negative actuations to me. I assure my critics that if I were not bedridden, I would educate them physically.

MIRIAM: NAME SOLONS IN SECRET BUDGET INSERTS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, vice-chair of the Senate finance committee, said that if congressional insertions are made on the floor in plenary session, they are regular; but if they are made at the secret bicameral meetings, they are irregular and their authors should come forward and identify themselves.

She said that apparently, Senate President Manny Villar initiated the congressional insertion during the period of amendment on the floor in plenary session, which renders it regular.

Santiago issued the dare to other solons during the public hearing yesterday on the budget process, particularly on the alleged double entry for the C-5 extension project.

The exasperated Santiago issued the call for solons to identify themselves voluntarily, after budget secretary Rolando Andaya, Jr. refused to release the names of the legislators who made the congressional insertions, during the bicameral meetings.

Andaya also failed to give Santiago his estimate of the total congressional initiatives, after admitting that in the public works budget alone, the initiatives totaled P17.5 billion.

On Santiago ’s question, public works secretary Hermogenes Ebdane said that the total budget cost of the controversial Garcia Ave. Extension from SLEX to Sucat road, including right of way, is P 4.49 billion.

During the hearing, Santiago and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, chair of the Senate finance committee, disagreed on the respective roles of the President and the Congress in jointly exercising the “power of the purse.”

Enrile said that the President’s budget is merely a working draft, and is not binding on Congress.

Santiago said that since the President’s budget is the result of the collective expertise of the budget department, finance department, and the NEDA, it should be respected and, as much as possible, should be left intact.

“Massive congressional insertions embedded in the 2008 budget during the secret bicam meetings changed beyond recognition the priorities observed by the executive branch,” she said.

The feisty senator said that she respectfully dissented from Enrile’s view, “at the risk of being smacked by my elder and better.” The two senators were seated side by side, but were amicable.

Santiago said budget amendments made on the floor are regular, but if made in the secret bicam meetings, they are “devious and suspicious.”

Santiago said that this week she will file her bill called Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008, with certain features which she strongly advocated during the hearing.

“Congressmen who propose an earmark should be identified,” she said.

Santiago said all bicameral conference committee reports should include a list of all earmarks in the budget.

“To observe the constitutional duty of transparency, the bicameral conference committee report on the budget, including the list of earmarks, should be made available to the Senate and to the general public on the internet for at least 24 hours before its consideration in plenary session,” she said.

Santiago said that every earmark proposal should be accompanied by an explanation of its essential government purpose.

“I am also considering adopting the American law and filing a Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,” she said.

Santiago said that her second bill will require the DBP to create a searchable data base of all government-appropriated funds and their recipients.

In her opening statement at the hearing, Santiago told the TV audience that what we in the Philippines call “congressional insertions” are in the U.S. called “earmarks.”

“Even in the U.S. , the executive and legislative branches cannot agree on the definition of ‘earmarks,’ which we call congressional insertions,” she said.

Santiago said that on the one hand, the U.S. executive branch, through the Office of Management and Budget, defines earmarks as “funds provided by the Congress for projects where the congressional direction circumvents executive branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage critical aspects of the fund’s allocation process.”

Santiago said that on the other hand, the U.S. legislative branch, through the Congressional Research Service, defines an earmark as a provision that specifies certain congressional spending priorities and may appear either in the text of the budget or the report of the bicameral conference committee on the budget.

“The issue of congressional insertions is paramount. Thus, earmarks figured in the first round of the U.S. presidential debate between McCain and Obama, and earmarks are being raised as an issue against vice-presidentiable Sarah Palin,” she said.

MIRIAM TO LEAD AD HOC BODY FOR NEW SENATE BUILDING

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, has volunteered to chair a temporary committee to supervise efforts to implement a plan to construct a new Senate office building.

In her letter to Senate President Manny Villar, Santiago stated that she has no direct or indirect financial interest in the project since she does not intend to run for reelection in 2010.

She recommended Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Aquilino Pimentel as members of the ad hoc body.

In her Senate Resolution No. 640, Santiago pointed out that the Senate is currently spending P7.78 million a month to rent the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) building in Pasay, and about half a million pesos to rent the parking space since its transfer from the Old Congress Building in Burgos Street in Manila. This totals P8.29 million a month or around P100 million for the whole year.
Moreover, some senators also maintain satellite offices to accommodate all their staff including their files, translating to roughly half a million pesos in additional Senate expenses.

“Considering all these expenses, it would be reasonable to explore the feasibility of constructing a new Senate building,” Santiago said.

Santiago’s proposal coincided with the start of the Senate finance committee hearings on the 2009 national budget. The Department of Budget and Management proposed a P1.94 billion budget for the Senate.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate occupied the Old Congress Building in Manila from 1926 to 1945 where the Senate occupied the upper floors while the House occupied the lower portion.

In 1987, the Senate obtained the use of the Commission on Audit-National Capital Region Office(COA-NCR) Building in the Batasan area and started construction of the building intended for the Secretariat

Although spending more than P41 million for improvement of the land, building and other structures, the Senate discontinued the construction and turned over the COA-NCR Building to the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

MIRIAM: EXPOSE BUDGET INSERTS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, in a privilege speech yesterday, said that it is unconstitutional for Congress to keep secret the budget process, thus leading to abuses of authority during the bicameral conference.

“All decisions made by the bicameral conference should be printed and circulated to members of both houses of Congress three days before the panel’s ratification of the bicameral committee report,” she said.

Santiago said the bicameral committee members often abuse their authority.

“With the budget, the bicam not only reconciles the differences between the House and the Senate versions. Under the most secretive conditions, the conference introduces budget items that did not exist in any version,” she said.

Santiago said that to make the budget process transparent, the bicam should be limited to reconciling the disagreeing provisions of the House and the Senate versions.

“No new budget programs, projects, and activities should be introduced during the process of budget reconciliation,” she said.

Santiago urged the media to expose all congressional initiatives every year- end, listing the legislators, the public works projects, and the amounts.

“Even I, a senator no less, was refused by the Legislative Budget Review and Monitoring Office (LBRMO) when I asked for such a list yesterday,” she said.

Santiago said refusal to give her the information violates the “constitutionally protected right of the public to information on matters of public concern.”

Santiago said it was the second time that the LBRMO refused to give her information, the first having been her request for the names of senators, if any, who have returned to the Senate at yearend any excess money from their Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).

In her first year as senator in 1996, Santiago returned her excess fund, but was severely criticized by her then colleagues in the Senate for alleged breach of confidentiality.

“Congressional insertions are part of the amendment process of the budget, but like pork barrel funds, they should be revealed to the public with respect to recipients and amounts,” she said.

Santiago also urged the two finance chairs – Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Rep. Edcel Lagman – to ensure that the budget indicates if an appropriation is part of a multi-year “installment plan.”

“For example, if the C-5 extension project really costs P 4 billion to be paid in annual installments, then every appropriation should be marked as ‘Installment 1,’ and so on. That way, we shall avoid public suspicion of an improper double entry,” she said.

Santiago said that Senate Pres. Manny Villar was not necessarily culpable, if he requested the congressional insertion of another P200 million for the same project that had already been given the same amount in another page.

“It appears that there were double entries, because the first entry was one installment, and the second entry was another installment on the total amount appropriated for the same project,” she said.

Santiago proposed that the Senate President and the Speaker should agree on a policy of self-restraint and public disclosure, by adopting the policy of notifying each legislator that each one is entitled to a congressional insertion uniformly limited in amount.

“Congressional insertions are objectionable, because they are done secretly, and some senators get more money than others, while others do not even ask for anything at all,” she said.

Santiago was one of few senators named by Sen. Enrile as those who did not make any congressional insertions for the 2005 budget.

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.

MIRIAM GOES AFTER ABSENT, LATE SENATORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-End-