MIRIAM: CHARTER FORBIDS TRILLANES MOVE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a dissenting opinion to the proposed Senate resolution amending the Senate Rules by allowing detained Sen.. Antonio Trillanes to participate in Senate sessions by teleconference or videoconference.

Santiago , on sick leave, told the media that she expects administration senators to sign her dissent, including senators Joker Arroyo, Richard Gordon, Manuel Lapid, Ramon Revilla, Jr., and Juan Miguel Zubiri.

The Senate Rules can be amended by a motion presented one day before its consideration, by a vote of the majority of the senators present in the session.

Santiago ’s 10 legal grounds are listed in the enclosed dissenting opinion, which shall be circulated among administration senators.

Santiago , although on sick leave, has influenced Senate votes on important issues. Last week, she released an opinion that it might be unconstitutional for the Senate to detain former agriculture secretary Jocelyn Bolante for the fertilizer fund scam, leading the Senate to release him.

-End-

---

15 December 2008

DISSENTING OPINION

TO PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR TRILLANES TELECONFERENCE

By Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

This is to respectfully dissent from the proposed resolution to amend the Senate Rules to allow electronic participation by detained Sen. Antonio Trillanes in Senate proceedings. The grounds for my dissent are as follows:

1. The resolution might violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. It will deny due process to the state, represented by state prosecutors who have charged Trillanes with two counts of coup d’etat: one for the Oakwood incident, and the other for the Peninsula incident. If there is any move to allow Trillanes’ electronic participation, the principle of fair play dictates that there should be notice and hearing to the state prosecutors concerned. The resolution merely represents the view of certain senators, who are airing the side of the accused. The Senate has not heard from the side of the prosecution. Since due process requires notice and hearing to all parties involved, merely passing a resolution would be a denial of due process to the state.

2. The resolution might violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It might serve as a bad precedent for other persons in other circumstances to invoke a right to participate by electronic means in collective decision-making. Admittedly, the resolution is not limited to a detention prisoner, but includes those who are hospitalized or ill. However, the effect of the resolution would be to make the Senate a singular institution, distinguished from all collective institutions, because the Senate alone would conduct its plenary sessions by electronic means. This would be deleterious to other important collective agencies, such as the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and even the President’s cabinet. Should a constitutional issue be raised on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court will be faced with the choice of either striking down the Senate resolution, or the untenable choice of making the privilege available to all members of collective public agencies.

3. The resolution violates the common law principle that: “He who comes to court, should come to court with clean hands,” also known as the “clean hands” principle. Trillanes does not come with clean hands. By means of his two nationally-televised coup attempts, he has demonstrated his contempt for the existing governmental system, and for the rule of law. If he had succeeded, he would have been hailed as a hero. But he failed, and is now a suspected criminal. In effect, he is a political offender, who is defined as a criminal driven by ideology. It appears that the Trillanes ideology is to destroy the present government. Thus, he is now barred from seeking the privileges of the very same government he sought to destroy.

4. Trillanes is seeking a privilege that not even presidents and queens have dared to demand. Heads of state, such as the RP and US presidents, as well as the UK queen, appear personally when they deliver state of the nation addresses to the Congress. They do not do so by teleconference. Admittedly, Trillanes is absent because he is under compulsory detention. But his election as senator does not operate to erase the crimes that he apparently committed in full view of the national TV audience. To allow him teleconference rights would be to reward those who have openly expressed contempt for the social order. In fact, if he wishes to be a hero, he should stand his ground and refuse to accept any and all privileges from the Senate, one of the principal institutions that his coup, if it had been successful, would have destroyed.

5. It is not necessary to amend the Senate Rules, because Senate tradition already allows participation of an absent senator in plenary sessions. This is done when the absent senator requests a present senator to read into the records his debate paper, such as interpellations.

6. It is not beneficial, because from a cost-benefit analysis, the expense is not worth one senator’s participation. The resolution is not based on hard data concerning how much the total cost will be.

7. Absence of a senator does not deprive any particular constituency of representation. A senator is elected nationwide, on his main qualification of competence for policymaking. Thus, it cannot be argued that failure of a senator to participate in Senate proceedings would deprive his constituents of a representative. Unlike a member of the House of Representatives, a senator has no defined constituency to represent. A senator is meant to represent the entire country in helping to make policy decisions.

8. The proposed resolution invokes R.A. No. 8792, or the Electronic Commerce Law of 2000, as well as the SEC circular authorizing board meetings through teleconference. Both citations are unavailing. As its name implies, the law is intended primarily to promote commerce. SEC is a major player in the commerce sector. The law makes no reference at all to legislative proceedings, and is thus irrelevant to the issue.

9. Rule 41, Sec. 117, provides that the vote of an absent senator shall not be counted. This Rule is so old that it derives its legal force not only from its inclusion in the Rules, but also from the fact that it has become a tradition. It would denigrate the voting process in the Senate to allow an absent member to vote by remote means.

10. It would be inconsistent for me personally, to favor teleconference rights for Trillanes, when I have a pending complaint against him with the ethics committee. Under Senate Rule 34, acts which offend a public institution shall be deemed unparliamentary. Further, the intent of my complaint against Trillanes is for the Senate to punish him for disorderly behavior in two coup attempts: one before, and one after, his election as senator. If the Ethics Committee so recommends, the Senate may suspend him for 60 days or even expel him outright. I cannot possibly request the Senate to expel him on the one hand; and to allow him to participate in Senate sessions by remote means, on the other hand. That would be unethical prevarication.

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview
11 December 2007

On the revival of the Cha-Cha in the Lower House

Theirs is no point resurrecting the dead. Why try and revive it? What is the reason for changing the Constitution at this particular time? Here in the Senate, we are all engaged in trying to pass the national budget this afternoon or at least this week. And in the Powercom, we have a series of scandals. In fact, as Chair of the JCPC, I am getting terminal headaches from all these scandals: the sale of the EDC shares of stock rather than just its geothermal fields packaged with steam sales agreement; the sale of Transco, which have been attacked by certain opposition senators because of the alleged conflict of interest with the PSALM president; and, most recently, the privilege speech of a congressman alleging that NAPOCOR has paid for coal that was grossly overcharged, and that overpayment will of course be reflected in next year’s electricity rates.

I want to know the following things about charter change:

1. Is there a necessity?
   
2. What are the benefits to be gained from it?
   
3. How practical is the proposal?
   

In all three issues, I submit that the answer is in the negative.

What maybe the motives behind this?

I don’t really know, except maybe if the House of Representatives just wants to prove to President Arroyo, since her recent altercation with the leadership of the House, that it still has some weight and cannot just be kicked around by the executive branch of government. There is always two countervailing forces that the House can fall back on whenever it feels that they are not getting their due: 1) the power to impeach, and 2) the power to initiate charter change.

This is all part of the power game, which is really very annoying and very tiring. We have so many priority bills. This morning at the LEDAC, we couldn’t even decide among ourselves which four or six bills to pass before Christmas break, and which fourteen or fifteen bills to pass before the first semester. And then we have all these extraneous political noise going on.

On the composition of the Ethics Committee as principal obstacle from hearing the resolution to suspend or expel Sen. Trillanes

Apparently, the committee has not yet been organized. This is perfectly understandable because no senator wants to sit in judgment over his or her own colleague. Nobody wants to be chair of the Ethics Committee and nobody wants to be a member. That’s the problem: nobody wants to pass judgment, because if you don’t judge anything, then you don’t get into trouble over anything. My contention is that we have a power granted to the Senate not only by the Rules of the Senate but by the Constitution itself. And we cannot simply abnegate this power simply by non-action. Our inaction or our silence, as provided by the Civil Code and in the Penal Code, will be interpreted as consent. In love, sex, the Civil Code, the Penal Code, and the actions of the Senate, silence means consent.

-o0o-

FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC )
OF THE PHILIPPINES )
First Regular Session )

SENATE

P.S.R. No. 228


Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago


URGENT RESOLUTION
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT IT IS AN UNPARLIAMENTARY ACT FOR A SENATOR TO LEAD AN ATTEMPTED COUP D’ETAT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT,
AND CALLING FOR HIS PROPER PUNISHMENT

WHEREAS, on 29 November 2007, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who is detained and under trial on a charge of coup d’etat, walked out of a Makati courtroom and stormed into a hotel where he participated in the reading of a prepared seditious statement calling not only for the President to resign, but also for the public, in effect, to compel her to leave office;

WHEREAS, the Rules of the Senate, Rule 34, Section 97, provides:

SEC. 97. Upon the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the Senate may punish any Member for disorderly behavior and, with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the entire membership, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) calendar days.

WHEREAS, the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, provides:

SEC. 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State.

WHEREAS, this provision means that the President, as commander-in-chief, is supreme not only over the military, but also over its rogue elements. Furthermore, the provision that the AFP is the protector of the people is not meant to authorize any of the rogue military to stage a coup d’etat, but is intended to emphasize the defense of the country from foreign attack;

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges, should meet immediately and recommend the proper punishment for Senator Trillanes for disorderly behavior and unparliamentary acts and language, including if necessary, his suspension or expulsion from the Senate.

Adopted,


                                                                                                                         (Sgd.)

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Senator wants Trillanes expelled from Senate

From Inquirer.net
First posted 04:34:01 (Mla time) December 01, 2007  

MANILA, Philippines -- Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago is preparing to ask the Senate to reprimand or even expel Senator Antonio Trillanes IV for leading a siege on a hotel in the Makati business district Thursday.

In a resolution that she plans to submit for action on Monday, Santiago said: “The Senate committee on ethics and privileges should meet immediately and recommend the proper punishment for Senator Trillanes for disorderly behavior and unparliamentary acts and language, including, if necessary, his suspension or expulsion from the Senate.”

The ethics committee is chaired by Sen. Pia Cayetano.

Santiago said she believed that Trillanes’ acts on Thursday had been planned: “He participated in the reading of a prepared seditious statement calling not only for the President to resign, but also for the public, in effect, to compel her to leave office.”

The Senate’s rules allow punishment of any of its members for disorderly behavior upon the recommendation of the ethics committee, as long as this is concurred in by two-thirds of the members of the chamber, said Santiago, a staunch ally of President Gloria Macaagal-Arroyo, whom she is joining in a trip to London and Spain this Saturday night.

But she conceded that penalizing Trillanes would be difficult, considering that his oppositionist allies accounted for the majority in the Senate.

Before Thursday, Trillanes had been in detention on a coup d’état charge for his role in a 2003 military mutiny. He has yet to attend a session at the Senate since his election last May.

Premature

Sen. Pia Cayetano said that while her committee was bound to act on Santiago’s resolution, any Senate action on Trillanes would be “premature” because his cases were still pending in court.

She cited the case of former congressman Romeo Jalosjos, who was expelled from the House of Representatives only after the Supreme Court had upheld his conviction for rape.

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. concurred with Cayetano, saying: “Trillanes is innocent of the crimes until he is convicted. He has to be convicted first before he is punished. He should not be prejudged before he is convicted.”

Senate President Manuel Villar said his position was that the chamber should tread carefully in disciplining one of its own.

He said he doubted whether Trillanes could be expelled, especially with the opposition in control of the Senate.

Send a clear message

Whether the Senate reprimands, suspends or expels Trillanes, Santiago said it was important that the Senate would send a clear message to the public that it was not tolerating crimes committed by a senator.

She said some opposition senators who were also lawyers like herself were most likely as “annoyed and offended” by Trillanes’ actions.

“Nagdudunung-dunungan kasi’ [He’s trying to look intelligent]. He is interpreting the Constitution as a layman, which should not be because you need four years to have the skill to interpret it,” she said.

-o0o-

Press Release

26 July 2007

Miriam Votes "No" on Trillanes Resolution

Administration Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago voted against the Trillanes resolution, alleging that it violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the constitutional doctrine of the independence of the judiciary, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“This resolution is unnecessary, because the judiciary knows the Rules of Court better than the Senate. It is not beneficial, because it will not influence the judiciary, but may even incur its displeasure. And it is not practical, because the Senate has no army with which to enforce it,” said Santiago, a constitutional law expert, in her speech explaining her vote.

Santiago said that since the Senate is part of the legislative branch of government, the Senate should confine itself to matters that could properly be the subject of lawmaking.

“The question of the detention of a person accused of a nonbailable crime is judicial, not legislative, in nature,” she said.

In her speech, Santiago said that the practice of using the sense of the Senate resolution began in the US Congress where it is used to express Senate opinions on national policy issues only.

“A sense of the Senate resolution is usually used only to express opinions on foreign policy issues. Sometimes it is used in domestic policy issues. But it is never used in judicial issues,” she said.

Santiago said that even the Senate sometimes is in danger of contempt if it expresses an opinion on a case pending in court.

Santiago cited the 1987 decision of the Supreme Court in Nestle v. Sanchez where the Court prohibited any “attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it.”

“Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions, or other pleadings,” Santiago quoted from the decision.

Santiago also said that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, the court should treat Sen. Trillanes in the same way that it treated Rep. Jalosjos in the 2000 case of People v. Jalosjos.

“Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court will stand by precedent and will not disturb a settled point,” Santiago said.

Santiago quoted the Jalosjos ruling stating that an elective official should not receive different treatment as other prisoners validly confined under the law.

“Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members,” Santiago quoted from the Supreme Court.

-o0o-

Senator Santiago's speech explaining her "No" vote on the Trillanes Resolution.

I VOTE “NO” ON THE TRILLANES RESOLUTION

By Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
25 July 2007

I vote “No” on the Trillanes resolution, on the following grounds:

1. It violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
   
2. It violates the constitutional doctrine of the independence of the judiciary.
   
3. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

FIRST GROUND.
THIS RESOLUTION VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.

Our Constitution does not contain an express provision for the separation of powers. But some constitutional law scholars describe the doctrine of separation of powers as “probably the most important principle of government declaring and guaranteeing the liberties of the people.” We imply this doctrine from Articles 6, 7, and 8, which create separate legislative, executive, and judicial departments. Because we merely draw it by implication from these articles, we cannot define the doctrine precisely.

But it is obvious that since the Senate is part of the legislative branch of government, it should confine itself to matters that could properly be the subject of lawmaking. The question of the detention of a person accused of a crime is judicial, not legislative, in nature. To use a sense of the Senate resolution to deal with a case pending in court would be a misuse of the sense of the Senate tradition.

This tradition that we copied from the United States Congress allows that one or both houses of the Congress may formally express opinions about subjects of current national interest through freestanding simple or concurrent resolutions (called generically “sense of the House,” “sense of the Senate,” or “sense of Congress” resolutions). These opinions may also be added to pending legislative measures by amendments expressing the views of one or both chambers.

Sense of the House or Senate resolutions take the form of simple resolutions because they only require the approval of one chamber. “Sense of” resolutions are considered under the normal legislative processes of each chamber applicable to any other legislative vehicle. Because “sense of” resolutions do not involve the expenditure of public funds, such resolutions when reported from House committees are placed on the House calendar. Typically, the House considers them through suspension motions, unanimous consent requests, or by special rules. The Senate normally takes up “sense of” resolutions through unanimous consent requests or, more infrequently, they are automatically laid before the Senate under the “resolutions, over, under the Rule” process (Senate Rule XIV of the U.S. Senate).

A “sense of” resolution is not legally binding because it is not presented to the President for her signature. Even if a “sense of” provision is incorporated into a bill that becomes a law, such provisions merely express the opinion of Congress or the relevant chamber. They have no formal effect on public policy.

A sense of the Senate resolution is non-binding legislation that simply offers the opinion of the body but does not make law. Although often purely symbolic in nature, such resolution can also indicate which way the Senate is likely to head on other legislation.

Sense of resolutions and amendments expressing the sense of one or both houses of Congress have covered many issues. A survey of “sense of” resolutions and amendments offered during the 105th Congress of the U.S. shows that most of them focused on foreign policy matters, particularly resolutions that express the sense of the Senate. However “sense of” proposals have also addressed domestic policy issues, such as calling for certain federal agencies or officials to take specified action or to refrain from some action.

When members of the House, Senate or entire Congress want to "send a message," or state an opinion, they try to pass a "sense of" resolution. Since such resolutions do not create law, what good are they?

Simple or joint resolutions expressing the "sense of" the Senate, House or Congress merely express a majority opinion. They do not make law and are not enforceable. Only bills and joint resolutions create laws.

"Sense of" legislation can come in the form of Simple Resolutions (H.Res. or S.Res.), used to express the opinion of the House or Senate alone, or as Concurrent Resolutions (H.Con.Res. or S.Con.Res.) used to express the opinion of the entire Congress. "Sense of" resolutions can also be added as amendments to regular House or Senate bills. Even when added to regular bills, "sense of" amendments have no force of law.

"Sense of" resolutions are typically used as:

• For the record: a way for individual members of Congress to go on the record as supporting or opposing a particular policy or concept;
  
• Political persuasion: a simple attempt by a group of members to persuade other members to support their cause or opinion;
  
• Appeal to the president: an attempt to get the president to take or not take some specific action (such as S.Con.Res. 2, considered by Congress in January 2007, condemning President Bush's order sending over 20,000 additional U.S. troops into the war in Iraq.),
  
• On foreign affairs: a way to express the opinion of the people of the United States to the government of a foreign nation; and
  
• Just saying "thanks": a way to send the congratulations or gratitude of Congress to individual citizens or groups. For example, congratulating U.S. Olympic champions or thanking military troops for their sacrifice.

"Sense of" resolutions require only a simple majority vote to pass and, since they do not create laws, do not require the signature of the president.

Although "sense of" resolutions have no force in law, foreign governments pay close attention to them as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities.

Finally, no matter how momentous or threatening the language used in "sense of" resolutions may be, remember that they are merely a political tactic and create no laws, whatsoever.

SECOND GROUND.
THIS RESOLUTION VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DOCTRINE OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

A group of litigants held a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court building. The Court ordered them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. The litigants apologized, and the Court dismissed the contempt charges. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Nestle v. Sanchez, 154 SCRA, 542 (1987) issued per curiam:

The court will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of justice entitled to “proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive to its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.”

The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free governments. However, such right, natural and inherent though it may be, has never been invoked to shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the conduct of courts. For “it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.”

Moreover, “parties have a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or public clamor. Every citizen has a profound personal interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law free from outside coercion or interference.” The aforecited acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the dignity of this Court, but equally a violation of the above-stated right of the adverse parties and the citizenry at large.

THIRD GROUND.
THIS RESOLUTION VIOLATES THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The lis mota of this resolution has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 698 (2000). Under the doctrine of res judicata, a matter once judicially decided is finally decided. Under the doctrine of judicial precedent, a decision of the court furnishes an authority for a similar case afterward arising on a similar question of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the court will stand by precedent and will not disturb a settled point. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Adhere to precedents, and do not unsettle things which are established. In Jalosjos, the Supreme Court ruled:

What the accused-appellant seeks is not of an emergency nature. Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings for five (5) days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.

The accused-appellant avers that his constituents in the First District of Zamboanga del Norte want their voices to be heard and that since he is treated as bona fide member of the House of Representatives, the latter urges a co-equal branch of government to respect his mandate. He also claims that the concept of temporary detention does not necessarily curtail his duty to discharge his mandate and that he has always complied with the conditions/ restrictions when he is allowed to leave jail.

When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that at any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office.

Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law?

The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the "mandate of the people" are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. Depending on the exigency of Government that has to be addressed, the President or the Supreme Court can also be deemed the highest for that particular duty. The importance of a function depends on the need for its exercise. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most compelling under the law of nature. A doctor with unique skills has the duty to save the lives of those with a particular affliction. An elective governor has to serve provincial constituents. A police officer must maintain peace and order. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law.

The Supreme Court, therefore, find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class.”

CONCLUSION

This resolution is unnecessary, because the judiciary knows the Rules of Court better than the Senate. This resolution is not beneficial, because it will not influence the judiciary, but may even incur its displeasure. And this resolution is not practical, because the Senate has no army with which to enforce it.

-o0o-

Press Release

21 June 2007

MIRIAM: TRILLANES WILL STAY JAILED

Responding to media queries, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said that senator-elect Antonio Trillanes will likely remain in jail even after Congress resumes session in July, following a landmark Supreme Court decision.

Santiago cited the 2000 case of People v. Jalosjos, where the Supreme Court ruled that a convict in jail pending appeal and later elected representative, had to stay in jail even after he won in the election.

"Just because a detention prisoner has won as senator does not mean that he should be free to attend Senate sessions, because that would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution," Santiago said.

Santiago explained that the Equal Protection Clause requires the government to treat alike all persons similarly situated, and that no undue favoritism may be allowed.

"All persons charged with nonbailable offenses, such as the crime of coup d’etat, have to remain in jail. Election as senator does not entitle a detention prisoner to special treatment. Otherwise, the result is what the law calls an invidious discrimination," she said.

Santiago quoted the ruling in People v. Jalosjos, thus: "Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty or movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class."

Santiago explained that the Supreme Court ruling was based on the concept of public self-defense. The Court also added that "it is the injury to the public which state action in criminal law seeks to redress. It is not injury to the complainant."

Santiago said that to allow detention prisoners to attend Congress sessions would amount to the creation of a privileged class.

She further quoted the Jalosjos ruling, thus: "Allowing accused to attend congressional sessions and committee meetings will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to the position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused’s status to that of a special class, it would also be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system."

Santiago said that Jalosjos, while a detention prisoner and after election as a representative, was provided with a congressional office and staff at the Batasan. He was also provided with an office at Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa. While under detention, Jalosjos was able to file several bills and resolutions. Jalosjos also received his salaries and other monetary benefits as a representative.

"On these findings, the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoner could perform his function as a representative while in jail. In fact, the Supreme Court went so far as to state that since he was a detainee, the accused should not have been allowed by the Bilibid Prison authorities to receive his constituents in jail."

Santiago said the Supreme Court justified its ruling with the following explanation: “When the voters of his district elected the accused to Congress, that would fall with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. That would fall with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison."

-o0o-