Transcript of interview

1 October 2009

On the suggestion of waiving the donor’s tax for the donations for typhoon victims 

There are many organizations here and abroad who want to make donations for the typhoon victims. What deters them is the prospect of having to pay donor’s tax. They are afraid that the tax would eat into the donation, that, in effect, they would be just giving money to the treasury which might be stolen by corrupt public officials. 

There are existing exemptions from donor’s tax. One of the ways you can avail of so we can immediately give the donation to the flood victims is to course it through a government organization and not through a private individual or organization. I will file a resolution on Monday that the Senate and the House should set up a donor reception center and issue the proper receipts and document the donations so that the donations would automatically be tax-free. That would stimulate the expected influx of donations from abroad.

What happened to the P10 billion for disaster relief from Congress?

They decided just to source it from national treasury funds because there is a measure of assurance from the DBM that the funds are ready anyway. There might be technicalities involved with the road user’s tax. We are coordinating closely between the committees on ways and means, and finance, with our counterparts in the House so that both chambers would be able to approve it, meet as a conference committee, and then immediately implement the P10 billion supplemental budget. You can expect by next week that the P 10 billion will be available and ready for distribution, and that the Senate would put up relief centers with the House of Representatives so that the donor’s tax would be automatically waived. I patterned the donor’s tax exemption after a Hurricane Katrina legislative measure.

On the reported extravagant LWUA anniversary celebration

That should be considered an extravagance during a time of calamity, and under the Civil Code it could be prevented by means of a court injunction. The Civil Code frowns upon excessive or conspicuous consumption in times of national emergency or calamity. If it falls within that category, anyone can go to court and obtain an injunction to stop it.

If it has already happened, then a petition can be filed in court for damages against those who held the celebrations because of a violation of a provision in our Civil Code. If we do not enforce it by means of court injunction, then it becomes a dead law. So I would strongly encourage any private person or organization to file the commensurate action for damages against the people responsible for it.

What could be their penalties?

They would have to pay in their individual capacities and refund the national treasury because I’m sure that the COA will not allow that as a necessary expense. Remember that the COA law provides that it shall disallow any unnecessary expense.

On public officials' infomercials still airing in media despite the calamity

I call on all public officials that are still broadcasting their infomercials to stop it immediately and to ask the permission of the networks, with whom they presumably have contracts, to agree to suspend at the very least those contracts and give the money to the typhoon victims. I think the infomercials will cause a backlash because if we just suffered the loss of lives and property, we don’t want to see in TV a person who is promoting himself as a candidate and appears oblivious to the calamity that other people are going through. So it becomes scandalous and anomalous.

On public officials and celebrities taking advantage of the calamity for publicity

There is public resentment, if they are not aware of it, of public officials very conspicuously distributing relief goods or even movie stars. This is not the time. If we just want to exercise an act of Christian compassion, they have to observe that this should be done in private and that there should be no benefit of any kind for the individual who is distributing these relief goods. Maling kultura iyon na kapag may disgrasya, kaagad kang darating at may ipinamimigay kunwari pero meron kang sariling mga photographers at press release.

That is sheer opportunism in my view. You know, if you are a devastated typhoon victim, with your life and properties in ruin, you don’t want to face TV cameras. And for example, movie stars dressed to the nines with heavy TV make up on giving you one kilo of rice.

On the country’s disaster preparedness

There has to be a long term strategy because we are in the typhoon belt and the earthquake belt. We have to have a long term program. First of all, we must complete the Marikina floodway project. The floods in Marikina were predicted long ago because it is a valley. And so government already started a drainage project so that the floods in Marikina could be diverted to the Manggahan floodway in Pasig, and then diverted to Manila Bay. But the canal from Laguna Lake to Manila Bay was never constructed. That is the reason why.

In addition to these floodway systems, we should have permanent evacuation centers because we are always implementing ad hoc measures. I just think that NDCC should have been better equipped than it actually is during these events. There is always an element of surprise like “Huh? What’s going on?”. That is why it is called disaster preparedness—they should be prepared.

RENEGOTIATE OR TERMINATE THE VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT

By Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
Chair, Legislative Oversight Committee on the VFA
Sponsorship speech on 23 September 2009

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:

On behalf of the Legislative Oversight Committee on the Visiting Forces Agreement (LOVFA), Senate panel, I have the honor to seek approval of Senate Resolution No. 1356, entitled “Resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Foreign Affairs should seek to renegotiate the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States, and in case of denial, should give notice of termination of the VFA.”

Constitution Bans Foreign Military Presence

After the Marcos rule, the renewal of the country’s constitutional regime prioritized the supreme concern of putting an end to foreign military presence, and an end to the continuity of US hegemony. Thus, the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25 provides in part: “Foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines, except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, and . . . recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”  

This supreme concern to free the country’s armed forces from the control of a foreign power intended to transform the AFP into a real backbone of Philippine sovereignty, instead of the hired spine of a foreign sovereign. The prospect of realizing the program of AFP modernization generated considerable expectation of independence right in the AFP itself.  

But the advent of the VFA spelled the restoration of the AFP dependence on America. Hence, the fate of modernization has ceased to be a politically appropriate topic in civilized circles.

2009 Supreme Court Case: Doctrinal Confusion

In the 2009 case of Nicolas v. Romulo, the Supreme Court held, by a split vote of 9-4, that the VFA is constitutional. The dissenters were led by no less than Chief Justice Puno, who began by saying: “This slur on our sovereignty cannot continue, especially if we are the ones perpetuating it.”

As a student of constitutional law, I humbly submit that the Nicolas ruling suffers from doctrinal confusion, and that it will not stand the test of time. I pointed out earlier that the Philippine Constitution requires that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines, except under a treaty recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

Has the US government recognized the VFA as a treaty? The answer is no.

The US Constitution provides that the US President has the power to make treaties, but only “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”¹

Has the VFA been concurred in by two-thirds of the US Senate? The answer is no.

The Nicolas majority opinion claimed that the VFA was submitted to the US Senate. This is misleading. The VFA was submitted as a compliance with an American law called the Case-Zablocki Act. This Act requires the US President, through the Secretary of State, to transmit to the US Congress, the international agreements entered into by the US government, or by its officials or agencies, which are not characterized as treaties. Thus, the US government does not characterize the VFA as a treaty. Therefore, the VFA, since it does not comply with the requirement of the RP Constitution, is unconstitutional and void in our country.

But because of the Nicolas opinion, the VFA is now part of the law of the land, to use RP constitutional language. By contrast, since the VFA is not characterized as a treaty in the US, it is not the supreme law of the land, to use US constitutional language. The US does not consider the VFA as a treaty, and it certainly does not consider the VFA as a self-executing treaty. Thus, US courts are not necessarily bound by it, because the US government considers the VFA as a mere executive agreement.

VFA Void for Vagueness

In the language of constitutional law, the VFA is void for vagueness, because it fails to define the terms “visit”, “temporary”, and “military activities.” Under the vagueness doctrine, it is impermissible for a statute to delegate basic policy matters to administrators, to such a degree as to lead to arbitrary and discriminatory application.

a. No Definition of “Visit”

Filipino political leaders involved in the signature and ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States (VFA) appear to have limited themselves to the title of the VFA, and never bothered to explain the term “visit” in the text. They gave the impression that under the VFA, the US military forces would be just “visiting”.

The document is officially titled: “Agreement between the government of the Republic of the Philippines and the government of the United States of America regarding the treatment of US armed forces visiting the Philippines.” But there is no definition of a visit.

Before the VFA was signed by the two governments, President Ramos described the VFA as intended for military exercises of US and Philippine forces. Endorsing the VFA for Senate concurrence, President Estrada emphasized in his press statements that the VFA pertained only to “military exercises”. Then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Siazon, who signed the VFA for the Philippines, expressed himself more clearly: “The VFA only speaks of American military forces who come to the country to conduct joint military exercises with Philippine troops.”² Deliberate or not, these pronouncements, authoritative as they are, give a false or even deceptive impression of the VFA.

b. No Definition of “Temporary”

The VFA, Article 1 titled “Definitions” does not define what is “temporary.” It merely states: “’US personnel’ means US military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition 2004, defines “visit” in international law as a naval officer’s boarding of an ostensibly neutral merchant vessel from another state to exercise the right of search. The same law dictionary defines “temporary” as continuing for a limited (usually short) time.

The Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6th edition 2006, defines “visiting forces” as: “forces from abroad, including their civilian components.” It does not bother to define “temporary.”

In the absence of conventional dictionary definitions of the words “visit” and “temporary” as terms of international law, it becomes necessary to define these terms in any international agreement. When the VFA failed to define these terms, then the failure to do so was done willfully and in bad faith. These undefined terms are each a lacuna, a blank space. These lacunae in substantive information are purposely devious, in order to allow the US forces to stay indefinitely in our country.

Thus, built into the VFA is a mechanism of flexibility that can deploy the US military forces in Philippine territory in a broad spread of strategic purposes, making the VFA an omnibus of US military presence of various forms and of varying objectives.

The history of the Senate contains certain defining moments, and one of them was Senate rejection of a new proposed agreement for the retention of the US military bases. But that defining moment appears to have been blurred, if not erased, by the VFA, which restores US military presence in our country.

c. No Definition of “Activities”

The political leadership that has given a deceptive description of the VFA as designed only for “military exercises” will be put to shame by their own reading of the VFA text, which NEVER uses the term “military exercise”. The Preamble merely states: “Reaffirming their obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty of 30 August 1951.” By contrast, the text of the VFA uses the term “activities,” without defining it or setting its limits.

Although the “activities” of US military forces under the VFA are unbounded, not one office or agency of the Philippine government – including the Senate – has ever raised the fundamental issue as to the magnitude of US military presence that the VFA allows. Similarly, the unlimited “activities” that the Philippine government may approve under the VFA has not been publicly discussed. And yet, the determination of the true nature and extent of the VFA hinges on what “activities” are contemplated by its object and purpose.

The VFA, Article 1, makes mention of “activities approved by the Philippine Government,” which may justify the presence of United States military and civilian personnel in the Philippines. Under Article 3 (1), the Philippine Government is under duty to facilitate the admission of US personnel into the Philippines “in connection with activities covered by this agreement”. What “activities” are subject to approval by the Philippine Government; and what are the “activities covered by this agreement” are questions that determine the nature, purpose, scope, and frequency of “visits” that actualize the US military presence.

The result is that the VFA, in circumvention of the prohibition against foreign military presence under the Constitution, opens the way to all forms of military activities of the US forces in Philippine territory, short of establishing a permanent military base.

Strategy of Forward Operating Bases

It must be emphasized that following the end of the Cold War with the implosion of the Soviet Union, the United States shifted its strategic policy from maintaining a permanent military base. It could be that changing power relations may require basing arrangements, in particular because of the emergence of an Enemy State, in sharpening conflict situations that may develop in US-China relations. But that is for the future.

For the present, the US policy is in favor of flexible military responses toward the development of “hybrid warfare” that calls for quick mobilization of small specially trained contingents, directed to specific incidents. This is also called “crisis response, rapid deployment unit”.

These are part of the new American military strategy of fighting so-called asymmetrical wars. Under this new lexicon, US forces establish Cooperative Security Locations where they pre-position logistical support. The Americans keep these locations small to avoid detection, but are prepared to convert them into larger military bases, when it becomes necessary.

Under cover of the VFA, the US in effect operates these mobile and flexible forward operating bases. These bases are not limited to training and capacity building. They go further by allegedly providing “logistical and intelligence support.” This term is so broad that under US interpretation, it allows actual immersion in combat operations.³

An American writer, in an article in the publication Atlantic Monthly, said:

There is high probability as well as existing accounts that the US forces are engaged in combat operations. The US Institute for Peace, a US government funded institution, describes the role of the US forces deployed in Mindanao in its February 2008 report. The deployment of US forces in Mindanao was not for humanitarian missions or civic actions, but for specific military objectives.⁴

US Task Force Engages in Combat

Two categories of military activities under the VFA have been established:

• The regular joint military exercises, which require temporary stay of US forces for the duration of each joint exercise; and


• The Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines (JSOTF-P), here known as Task Force. The Task Force is intended to target “terrorists”, i.e. the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), which are both listed by the US Department of State as “foreign terrorist organizations”. By its nature, the Task Forces, such as the JSOTF-P, normally operate in war zones as US instruments in its “global war against terror”.

The first commander of the Task Force, Col. David Maxwell, has clearly implied that combat operations are part of its business. He wrote in a military review journal this jaw-dropping example of constitutional illiteracy:

The deployment of U.S. troops was contentious in-country, because the local press asserted that U.S. forces could not legally participate in combat operations. However, a correct reading of the Philippine Constitution reveals that it prohibits only the stationing of foreign forces in the Philippines… The Constitution does not prohibit combat operations and provides an exception to this if there is a treaty in force and a treaty has been in force between the two countries since 1951. (Emphasis added.)⁵

Newspaper reports, internet sources, and US military accounts indicate that through the Task Force, US forces are engaged in unconventional warfare and combat operations. Col. Maxwell has described the Task Force that he once led as conducting operations “under the guise of an exercise”. 6 It is widely believed too, through US and Philippine sources, that US forces have established small-scale military bases in Zamboanga City and Sulu.

Detailed accounts of US military presence in the Philippines are too extensive to be treated in a short sponsorship speech. Accordingly, I am prepared with an Annex “A” that gives a sampling of the sources available, in particular from US military accounts.

Adding to the expansive meaning of the term “activities” as used in the VFA, US Defense Secretary William Cohen once declared that the VFA would enable US ships to have port calls or regular calls, aside from military training. In the period April 2001 to October 2007, more than 50 US warships entered Philippine territory and docked in various parts of the Philippine archipelago.⁷

Mutual Defense Treaty Irrelevant

Since this Senate failed to raise the fundamental issue as to the scope or magnitude of US military forces under the VFA, what “activities” have been performed in practice in the course of the VFA implementation?

By decision of the Mutual Defense Board, the US-RP Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) has been retooled into an anti-terrorism instrument, presumably on the basis of agreement between President Bush and President Arroyo. Quite remote from the object and purpose of the MDT, anti-terrorist activities have assumed a formal vehicle in MDT.

This gives the impression that the anti-terrorism measures by US military forces in Philippine territory are being carried out as a matter of treaty obligation on the part Philippine government. Thus, there would be no need of a separate agreement on combating international terrorism, and consequently there would be no need of Senate approval through constitutional concurrence. It is under the US policy against terrorism that the US-RP joint military exercises have been conducted through the years, such as the Balikatan exercises.

It is routinely argued that the 1998 VFA merely implements the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty. These two instruments are 50 years apart. How could the RP and the US provide in 1951 for the problem of terrorism in 1998? And if this agreement is to be taken seriously, why is there no mention of the Mutual Defense Treaty in the text of the VFA? The MDT is only mentioned in the Preamble.

The Philippine Supreme Court considers that the preamble is not an essential part of a statute: “The preamble can neither expand nor restrict its operation, much less prevail over its text. Nor can a preamble be used as basis for giving a statute a meaning not apparent on its face.”⁸

In any event, the MDT merely declares in Article 4: “Each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area or either of the parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety, and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

Thus, the MDT is irrelevant to the VFA. There is no armed attack against the Philippines; what we have in Mindanao is an insurgency. In case of armed attack in the Philippines, US response would not be automatic, but would have to undergo US constitutional processes, whatever the Americans will conceive it to be.

If China launches an armed attack against the Philippines over ownership claims to the Spratleys, will the US come to the aid of the Philippines? No. During this year’s visit to the Philippines, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying: “There are a number of security challenges and obvious concerns on conflicting claims in the South China Sea. The US takes no position on these claims.”⁹

But in realpolitik, Gates was merely saying that the US at this time cannot afford to antagonize China. China has bought US treasury bonds worth US$1 trillion. These so-called treasuries are documents of loans borrowed by the US. Hence, the US owes US$1 trillion to China.

Benefits Are Illusory

The Philippines is not even among the Top Ten Military Aid Recipients of the US compiled by the Center for Public Integrity three years after the 9-11 bombings of the Twin Towers in New York.¹⁰ The following list uses round figures:

1. Israel - $ 9 B


2. Egypt - $ 6 B


3. Pakistan - $ 4.6 B


4. Jordan - $ 2.6 B


5. Afghanistan - $ 2.6 B


6. Colombia - $ 2 B


7. Turkey - $ 1 B


8. Peru - $445.8 M


9. Bolivia - $320.6 M


10. Poland - $313 M

From Malacañang, the VFA Commission has produced the following list of financial aid from the US, as follows:

Foreign Military Financing since 1999 - US$250 M
Foreign Military Sales 2001-07 - US$76.5 M
Excess Defense Articles 1999-2007 - US$76.7 M

The US calls the Philippines as a major non-NATO ally, but treats us like a shabby country cousin. In return for the VFA, what we receive is paltry, mostly in the form of Excess Defense Articles, in other words, US military junk. According to the Federation of American Scientists: “Not wanting to pay the cost of things or destroying the surplus, the US Department of Defense dispenses most of it for free, or at deep reduction through the excess defense articles (EDA) program.”

It is said that despite years of American military aid to the Philippines, the AFP remains the most poorly equipped in Asia. Paano, akala natin bibigyan tayo ng Amerikano ng pampagara, yon pala, ukay-ukay ang inabot natin!

Conclusion

This Senate should at best express the desire of the thinking Filipino to renegotiate or else terminate the VFA, for the following reasons:

1. It violates the Philippine Constitution, which provides that the US as the other contracting state should have recognized the VFA as a treaty, not as a mere executive agreement.


2. The VFA, to use a constitutional law term, is void for vagueness, in that it fails to define the crucial terms “visit”, “temporary,” and “activities.”


3. The Supreme Court opinion in the 2009 case of Nicolas v. Romulo suffers from doctrinal confusion.


4. American military forces constitute so-called forward operating bases, thus circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign military bases.


5. Only the preamble, not the text, of the VFA mentions the ancient Mutual Defense Treaty, which does not even provide for automatic US help in case of actual attack on the Philippines.


6. The alleged financial benefits under VFA for the most part constitutes US military junk.


7. The VFA is a failure, because after 10 years, the AFP has not modernized sufficiently to keep up with our Asian neighbors, and the terrorist groups are still active.


8. VFA 2 violates the condition laid down in the Senate concurring resolution that there shall be no supplementary arrangement without Senate concurrence.

To top it all, on 21 August 2009, the New York Times reported: “Defense Sec. Robert M. Gates has decided to keep an elite 600-troop counterinsurgency operation deployed in the Philippines.” Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this unilateral statement, issued with the usual American military hubris, without consultation and without the consent of the proper Philippine authorities, is no less than an act of provocation against our sovereign country. Please, President Obama, say it’s not true.

And please, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, do not continue to look the other way, because history is looking us straight in the face. We have tried the VFA for ten years and found it wanting. It is not for this Senate to determine the life expectancy of the VFA. That power belongs to the Philippine President. Therefore, at the very least, this Senate should ask the executive branch of government either to renegotiate or to terminate the VFA.

For, as the immortal Justice Holmes said: “It must be remembered that in quite as great a degree as the courts, legislatures are the ultimate guardian of the liberties and welfare of the people.”

FOOTNOTES

1 US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2.

2 With sources from M. M. Magallona, Legal Issues in the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement, U.P. Law Center, 1998, p.1.

3 John Hendren, “Rebels shoot at US Troops in the Philippines,” Los Angeles Times, 18 June 2002.

4 Robert D. Kaplan, “Imperial Grunts,” Atlantic Monthly, October 2008, available online.

5 Military Review Journal, May-June 2004, as quoted in Focus on the Global South, Unconventional Warfare, No. 1 January 2007, pp. 8-10.

6 Focus on the Global South, At the Door of All the East, No. 2, November 2002, pp. 60-61.

7 International Herald Tribune, 4 August 1998.

8 People v. Garcia, 85 Phil. 663 (1950).

9 Ellen Tordesillas, June 2009 online.

10 Center for Philippine Integrity, “Collateral Danger: Human Rights and US Military Aid After 9/11,” issued 22 May 2007 online.

PALACE SHOULD STOP ILLEGAL CABINET INFOMERCIALS

BY SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate:

The Rhinoceros is Thick-Skinned

The dictionary defines a rhinoceros as a large, powerful, herbivarous, thick-skinned perissodactyl mammal with two horns. Thus, a rhinoceros is a template for cabinet members and other executive officials who use public funds, or gifts from so-called “friends,” to campaign for next year’s elections. They are all thick-skinned and should be shot on sight.

DBM Should Not Allow Ad Expenses

Last May, the Department of Budget and Management issued the “FY 2010 National Budget Call.” It is a set of guidelines and procedures in the preparation of the 2010 budget, which the Senate is expected to receive by the end of this month. Under the heading “Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses,” the DBM allows this item: “Advertising expenses. Cost of advertisement in newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and other forms of media.”  

We in the Senate do not see advertising expenses as a line item in the annual budget, because it is hidden under the general item MOOE. This is why cabinet members routinely abuse this advertising expense account every three years, when an election approaches. Without legislative oversight, they shamelessly help themselves to these public funds, on the pretext that they are conducting information campaigns about their departments.

COA Audit of Advertising Expenses

Greed for and abuse of public funds are proved by the figures from the Commission on Audit submitted to me, as chair of the economic affairs committee, on 14 August 2009 by Chair Reynaldo Villar. In 2008–2009, certain cabinet members and other executive officials, prematurely campaigning for the 2010 elections, used public funds totaling, in round figures, P118 million. In 2009 alone – the year before elections – they spent public funds for their candidacies totaling, in round figures, P100 million.

This is the list of cabinet members and other executive officials, arranged by the amount of government funds spent for infomercials, for the two years of 2008-2009:  

In Round Figures:

1. Chair Augusto Syjuco, Tesda - P28.3 M
   
2. Mayor Jejomar Binay, Makati - P23.4 M
   
3. VP Noli de Castro, OVP, Pag-ibig/HDMC, HUDCC - P18.1 M
   
4. Chair Efraim Genuino, Pagcor - P14.1 M
   
5. Sec. Francisco Duque, DOH - P13.2 M
   
6. Chair Bayani Fernando, MMDA - P 7.4 M
   
7. Sec. Jesli Lapuz, DepEd - P 5.7 M
   
8. Sec. Hermogenes Ebdane, DPWH - P 3.8 M
   
9. Sec. Nasser Pangandaman, DAR - P 2.4 M
   
10. Sec. Ronaldo Puno, DILG - P 0.9 M
     TOTAL = P117.7 M

And this is the list for the year 2009, so far:

1. Mayor Binay - P23.4 M
   
2. Chair Syjuco - P22.5 M
   
3. VP de Castro - P18.1 M
   
4. Chair Genuino - P14.1 M
   
5. Chair Fernando - P 6.4 M
   
6. Sec. Lapuz - P 5.7 M
   
7. Sec. Edbane - P 3.8 M
   
8. Sec. Duque - P 3.3 M
   
9. Sec. Pangandaman - P 2.4 M
   
10. Sec. Puno - P .240 M
     TOTAL=P100.4 M

 These executive officials can expect to stay in office until the end of November, the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy, when they will be considered resigned. Thus, unless we in the Senate will warn them to stop using public funds, they are likely to intensify their infomercials, and it would be likely that they will incur more expenses – maybe another P100 million. Their total greed and abuse might then reach a grand total of P218 million of public funds used for electioneering. One small step to the Senate, a giant leap in greed and abuse.

No Legal Basis for Infomercials

There is no specific legal basis for TV infomercials and other campaign materials which feature the head of agency. The law merely provides that: “public officials shall provide information on their policies and procedures.” (R.A. No. 6713, Code of Conduct for Public Officials, Sec. 4 (A) (e)). This provision should be read in the context of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights which provides that: “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.”

In other words, if a person goes to a government agency and requests information about policies and procedure, then the agency has a legally demandable duty to provide the information, unless it might endanger national security. The right is given to the citizen, not to the agency.

Possibly the only agency required by the Constitution to inform the public is the DOH, under the provision that the state shall instill health consciousness among the people. (Article 2, Sec 15).

But even assuming that infomercials have a specific legal basis, there is no legal basis for the appearance of the head of agency in a state-funded infomercial, particularly when he is planning to run in the elections. I challenge any of these executive officials to cite any such specific law. There is none. There is no legal basis for infomercials. They are illegal.

Timing is Dead Giveaway

If the cabinet officials are merely piously discharging their non-existent duty to expose themselves to the public, why did they start only in 2008, and why are they going full speed in 2009, the year before elections? Why didn’t they start publicizing their pious duty to appear in paid media, specially TV, when they assumed office, many years ago?

Gentlemen of the cabinet, how do you explain the timing of your highly-paid TV infomercials?

Here is the list of their dates of appointment: Mayor Binay - 30 July 2001; Chair Fernando - 3 June 2002; Chair Syjuco - 2004; VP de Castro - 30 July 2004; Sec. Duque - 9 June 2005; Sec. Teves - 12 July 2005; Sec. Puno - 6 April 2006; Sec. Lapuz - 19 July 2006; Sec. Teodoro - August 2007. 

COA Infomercials Unnecessary

Infomercials violate COA Circular No. 94-001 dated 1994 which states: “Sec 16. Grounds for Disallowance. 16.1. All transactions which are irregular, unnecessary, unconscionable, excessive, and extravagant (IUEE).”

According to COA, the audit criteria are as follows:

• +The infomercial should contain information that the public needs to know. What determines necessity is the public need, not the executive official’s political agenda. In their blind ignorance, certain cabinet members keep on chanting the mantra that they need to inform the public. In the optimum, every government agency and every public official has a duty to inform the public, BUT only if the public asks. Who ever asked these cabinet members to inflict their grotesque faces on the TV viewing public?  
  
• The infomercial should be part of the essential functions of the agency. For example, infomercials on a “need to know” basis could be issued by DOH concerning contagious diseases, or by DSWD on emergency assistance for dangerous calamities. Not any function of the agency will justify infomercials, but only an extraordinary function under extraordinary conditions. The infomercial should be essential to the operation of the agency.  
  
• The infomercial should be authorized by a line item in the budget.  
  
• The infomercial should have been processed in accordance with R.A. No. 1984.

Almost all of the infomercials flunk this fourfold test for legality. Under COA Circular No. 85-55-A, expenses for advertisements of anniversaries, etc., in newspapers, TV, or radio merely for publicity or propaganda purposes are unnecessary and should be disallowed, except when the nature of the agency’s mission would require such expenses, as in the case of promotion of trade and business. Here are some COA audit observations on the greed and abuse of executive officials:

• Chair Syjuco. On 27 February 2008, the COA declared as unnecessary, his advertising expenses in the sum of P12.3 M; on 12 March 2008, the sum of P21.12; M; and on 24 June 2009, the sum of P18.4 M. COA warned him at least three times, but he kept on spending public money. COA has noted that Mr. Syjuco’s ad with the professional singer Sarah Geronimo cost the taxpayer P8.3 million. 
  
• VP de Castro. He is the unpaid talent for a profusion of housing ads, thus gaining exposure.
  
• Chair Fernando. He used MMDA funds for giant tarpaulin posters, with his photo occupying over half of the area of the poster. 
  
• Sec. Puno. In 2009, he charged to DILG funds, media greetings on certain occasions, such as the President’s birthday, Mr. Puno’s own birthday, and the anniversary of the Tribune newspaper.  
  
• Sec. Duque. He appeared in ads concerning dengue, smoking, and generics.
  
• Sec. Lapuz. He appears in ads for Brigada Eskwela, for which DepEd funds were used to pay the Philippine Information Agency (PIA).
  
• Sec. Pangandaman. DAR ads showed him and the President.  
  
• Sec. Ebdane. DPWH ads showed him and the President.
  
• Chair Genuino. He appears in Pagcor ads, which are unnecessary, because Pagcor is a monopoly. Why advertise a monopoly?  
  
• Mayor Binay. He appears in ads extolling the benefits of living in Makati , where he is mayor, thus making a subliminal pitch for national office.

By admitting that public funds were used for these ads, the executive officials are admitting that they are guilty of the election offense of using public funds for electioneering. The Election Code, Sec 261 prohibits any person, under any guise whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to use public funds for campaigning.

Ads Paid by Friends Constitute Indirect Bribery

The infomercials of Mr. Puno, Mr. Teodoro, and maybe others, purport to be paid by “friends.” If so, the disclaimer in the TV ads constitute an admission of the crime of receiving manifestly excessive gifts, as defined by R.A. No. 3019, the Anti-Graft Act.

The rate card of a top TV channel charges P475,000 for 30 seconds of prime time. It appears that the running time of each executive official, ranked from the longest to the shortest, are as follows: Sec. Teodoro - 1 minute 12 seconds; Sec. Ebdane - 1 minute 3 seconds; Chair Genuino - 60 seconds; VP de Castro - 54 seconds; Mayor Binay - 39 seconds; Sec. Puno - 33 seconds; Sec. Teves - 30 seconds; Chair Syjuco - 30 second; Sec. Duque - 29 seconds; Chair Fernando - 20 seconds; Sec. Lapuz - 16 seconds.  

 These government officials are spending taxpayers’ money like there’s no tomorrow. If, as some ads proclaim, they were paid for by friends, the cost would run to hundreds of millions. Even a gift of P1 million is already considered to be “manifestly excessive.” We can only calculate that these ad expenses are “arrogantly excessive,” as in walang hiyaan na ito. We have been invaded by a herd of rhinoceros that are not only thick-skinned, but also dimwitted. They are making public admissions of the prohibited act of accepting a gift which is manifestly excessive.

 Under the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct (R.A. No. 6713) if convicted, they have to suffer the penalty of imprisonment up to five years, and disqualification to hold public office.  

Recommendations

In this speech, I do not include the issue of premature campaigning, because I have brought a case to the Supreme Court, where it is pending. It is sub judice, and I refrain from discussing it on the merits, except to express the conviction that certain people are breaking the law against premature campaign.

Recommendation No. 1. I appeal to my colleagues in this Senate that, when we deliberate on the budget next month, we should abolish appropriations for advertising. If we have to keep this line item, we should accompany it with the condition that it should not feature the agency head, or any political image, or any effort to influence public support for a political candidate.  

These prohibitions have been adopted by other countries. One example is the Guidelines on Campaign Advertising dated June 2008 by the Australian government department of finance. Another example is an American law that prohibits public officials from using the facilities of public office, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office. (RCW 42.17.130).

Recommendation No. 2. I also appeal to my colleagues that in the 2010 budget, we should amend Section 59, the “General Provision on the Use of Savings.” We should add the condition that savings and contingent funds shall not be used to augment the budget for professional services and for advertising agencies.

Recommendation No. 3. I urge the Comelec to discharge its constitutional duty to: “Recommend to the Congress, effective measures to minimize election spending.” Constitution, Art. 9, (C, Sec. (2) (7). Gentlemen of the Comelec, where is your political will? In effect, you have to assume responsibility for the premature campaigning of these cabinet candidates, because of your ruling on my petition, which I have elevated to the Supreme Court. With the avalanche of cabinet infomercials, it has now become clear to the public that by its refusal to stop premature campaigning on the basis of a technicality, Comelec opened the way to a slippery slope.

Recommendation No. 4. I urge the COA to disallow all advertising expenses, and to demand that the executive officials concerned should return to the government the money they used for their ads.  

Recommendation No. 5. I urge Channel 2, under its Boto Mo , Ipatrol Mo campaign; Channel 7, under its own election watchdog crusade; all other media; and all NGOs dedicated to honest and clean elections, to file a complaint with the Comelec for this election offense, against the executive officials I have mentioned, and others doing the same. If Comelec fails to act on a citizen complaint within four months from filing, I urge the NGOs to file the complaints with the state prosecutor or the Justice Department.

Recommendation No. 6. I demand that the Press Secretary as head of the Communications Group in the Office of the President should discharge his duty by directing all cabinet candidates to stop their infomercials immediately. Executive Order No. 511 dated 2006 creates the Communications Group and requires it to discharge the function of supervision of public information activities, including advertisements.

 At the hearing on 14 August 2009 of the economic affairs committee which I chair, I directed the executive officials to comply with the law, principally by observing COA audit criteria, and in any event to remove their images from their infomercials by the end of August. 

If there is no objection from our colleagues, I shall proceed to send a copy of this privilege speech to the Ombudsman, Comelec, and the Secretary of Justice, with my cover letter requesting criminal prosecution by October, if the executive officials refuse to be educated on the law, and continue their mad pursuit of public office by illegal and depraved use of public funds.

One-fifths of Senate bills filed by Miriam

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed the most number of bills in the Senate with 704 and co-authored 25 others. 

The senator’s bills almost comprise one-fifths of the 3,868 bills filed by all senators for the Fourteenth Congress. She also topped the list for most number of resolutions filed with 277. 

Santiago, despite her chronic fatigue syndrome, consistently led her fellow senators in submitting the most number of legislative measures since her election in 2004. Her medical condition prompted the senator to file for an indefinite sick leave last year and early this year. 

Notable among her bills is the Anti-Billboard Bill passed by the Senate but ignored by the House of Representatives in the last congress, reportedly because of the influence of a moneyed billboard lobby. 

The measure, which places a strict ban on the billboards that fail to comply with certain size and location requirements, recently passed the committee level as Committee Report No. 85 and is now waiting to be sponsored on the Senate floor. 

Santiago’s Anti-Video Voyeurism Bill passed second reading before the Senate’s sine die adjournment in the wake of the recent Senate investigation on the proliferation of the sex videos involving Dr. Hayden Kho and various women. The bill aims to protect the privacy and dignity of every person by criminalizing photo and video voyeurism. 

Senate Bill No. 1757, or the Clear Sidewalks Act of 2009, sponsored by Santiago and co-authored with Sen. Benigno Aquino III, passed third reading before the adjournment. 

The bill prohibits the use of streets, sidewalks, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks, and other public places for commercial or personal use, and requires citizens to apply for the temporary use of sidewalks for special community-wide occasions and other civic or charitable purpose.

An Act Regulating the Use of Sidewalks for Commercial Purposes

"Clear Sidewalks Act of 2009."

By Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago

(Sponsorship Speech on 27 May 2009)

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:

“A good city is one with great sidewalks.” This is how Mr. Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota, Colombia, differentiates an advanced city from a backward one. Mr. Peñalosa was credited for turning a deteriorated downtown avenue into a dynamic pedestrian public space. He is now the senior international advisor to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy of New York. He adds that “In a good city, you must be able to walk to buy milk or bread. If you have to get into a car to buy milk or bread it means the city is not well-designed.”

In our country, sidewalks are occupied by vendors and used as illegal transport terminals. Sidewalks are also blocked by illegal structures such as basketball courts, extensions of business establishments, and of all things, barangay halls. Hence, pedestrians resort to walking on the road. This results to traffic congestions, and worse, accidents.

The Supreme Court has declared in several cases including the 1992 case of Dacanay v. Mayor Asistio Jr. (208 SCRA 404), that:

A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man. The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through contract. The interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the city officials are under legal obligation to protect.

Main Features of the Bill

The objective of S.B. No. 1757 or the “Clear Sidewalks Act of 2009”, is to ensure that sidewalks are free from unauthorized commercial or personal use to facilitate the smooth passage of persons and to clear obstructions to vehicular flow.

It defines prohibited acts and sets 2 exceptions along with the procedure for applying for these exceptions. It sets a penalty of either a fine of P1,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days or both for a violation of its provisions.

Obligations Under the Bill

A. On the part of the government

The municipal or city government is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this bill. They shall formulate implementing rules and regulations within 30 days from the approval of this bill. Today, it is known that in some local governments, especially in the urban areas, the use of sidewalks for commercial purposes has the inherent blessings of municipal/city or barangay officials. Some collect vendors’ fees, others designate the sidewalk areas as leasable areas for parking and selling of merchandise. The fees are either shared by the municipal or city government or it entirely goes to the barangay where the sidewalk areas are located.

The effectiveness of implementation would therefore hinge on the local governments’ political will and the consequent sanctions they stand to receive for their failure to implement the law.

B. On the part of the citizens

The bill prohibits the use of streets, sidewalks, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places for commercial or personal use. The bill requires citizens to apply for the temporary use of sidewalks for either community wide special occasions or sales promotion days or civic or charitable purposes.

Benefits of the Bill to the Country

Walkable streets and pedestrian cities is the core concept of livable communities. By clearing our sidewalks, we not only reduce traffic congestion and accidents, we also save ourselves from inflating transportation costs since walking is still the cheapest form of going from one point to another. People can also enjoy healthier lives as they get a regular dose of exercise.

For these reasons, I humbly recommend that this Senate should approve Senate Bill No. 1757.

MIRIAM: PROSECUTE HAYDEN KHO FOR ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE’

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago today said that Dr. Hayden Kho can be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC), for committing “psychological violence” against actress Katrina Halili. 

Halili accused Kho of videotaping their sexual encounters without her knowledge and consent. The videos have since surfaced in the internet and copies in DVD format are being peddled in the streets. 

Under the VAWC, “psychological violence” refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause the mental or emotional suffering of the victim, such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse, and mental infidelity. 

Santiago said that under the law, a person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with a woman is guilty of committing psychological violence against her through acts causing her mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation. 

According to Santiago, if Kho is found guilty by a trial court of committing psychological violence against Halili, he faces from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment, and a fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P300,000. He must also undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment under the watchful eye of the trial court. 

Santiago said Kho cannot escape criminal liability by claiming the defense of insanity. According to media reports, Kho allegedly attempted suicide in the past. 

“The Supreme Court has already ruled in countless cases that insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act,” Santiago explained.  

“For the defense of insanity to be persuasive to the court, the accused must be completely deprived of reason or acts without the least discernment, because of a complete absence of the power to discern or total deprivation of the freedom of the will,” she explained. 

The sex video that leaked in the internet clearly shows that Kho set up the camera, carefully angled it, and positioned Halili so that their act would be caught on tape.  

“The whole episode would require intelligence, care, planning, and subterfuge. That is contrary to the definition of insanity as ‘total deprivation of freedom of the will,’” Santiago said.  

“Before the alleged filming of the video, Dr. Kho was somewhat of a minor celebrity who had been frequently interviewed on national television and seen in public events. In none of his public appearances did he conduct himself in a manner that would suggest insanity,” she said. 

“The presumption of law is always in favor of sanity. The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime for the accused to be exempted from criminal liability,” Santiago said. 

The feisty senator, who is a former trial court judge, also said that even those who sell, give away, or exhibit the sex videos are liable under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. They face from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment, or a fine ranging from P6,000 to P12,000, or both imprisonment and fine. 

Even before this scandal erupted, Santiago already filed a bill to criminalize photo and video voyeurism.  

Photo and video voyeurism is the act of capturing an image of the private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly doing it under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Santiago filed Senate Bill No. 1100, or the “Anti-Video Voyeurism Act,” last 4 July 2007. Senator Francis “Chiz” G. Escudero’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights has already conducted public hearings on the bill, and has submitted to the plenary Committee Report No. 65 last 2 June 2008. The legislative measure is still waiting to be calendared in the Senate plenary session. 

Santiago, as principal author of the bill, and Escudero, as chair of the committee that conducted public hearings on the bill, are co-sponsors of the measure. 

“Under my bill, it is not even necessary that the photo or video shows the aggrieved person engaging in sexual intercourse,” Santiago explained. “As long as a private area of the victim is visible in the photo or video, whoever captured the image without the consent of the victim, or captures the image with his or her consent but broadcasts the image without his or her written permission, is liable under this act.” 

The bill defines the “private area of the individual” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast. 

“For the victim, it is obviously very embarrassing and degrading to be photographed or videotaped in a compromised situation. It is a form of invasion of personal privacy,” Santiago said.  

ON NOGRALES THE RESOLUTION

If the House of Representatives passes the Nograles resolution by mere majority vote, then it will be unconstitutional. We are not allowed to conflate an ordinary bill with a charter change resolution. There is simply no correspondence between the two measures.

If the Nograles resolution is limited to economic provisions, then it is only an amendment, and not a revision. An amendment is limited only to specific provisions. Revision covers the entire Constitution.

But whether amendment or revision, the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of Congress. Any vote less than three-fourths is unconstitutional. For example, to pass a charter change resolution in the same way as an ordinary bill – by mere majority vote – is unconstitutional.

The reason for this is that the power of charter change is NOT part of the legislative power of Congress. Instead, the power of charter change is part of the inherent power of the people, who have spoken through the Constitution.

The power of Congress to pass laws is derived from its legislative power. By contrast, the power of Congress on charter change is derived from the Constitution. This difference was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the 1967 case of Gonzales v. Comelec.

The Constitution provides for charter change under Article 17 entitled “Amendments of Revisions.” The Constitution does not include charter change under Article 6 entitled “Legislative Department.” This is textual proof that a charter change resolution should not be treated like an ordinary bill. It would be like comparing a dilis to a whale.

The Nograles resolution, even if it follows the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional. By requiring only a majority vote, it contravenes the constitutional provision that charter change should pass by a three-fourths vote.

SENATE GIRDS FOR CHACHA SHOWDOWN

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a leading constitutional law expert, said that when the House of Representatives passes a resolution for charter change, immediately the Senate will file a petition in the Supreme Court to compel a separate Senate vote on the resolution.

“The Constitution requires a vote of three-fourths of all the members of Congress. The two chambers should vote at the same time, but should vote separately. This is the doctrine of necessary implication, because Congress is a bicameral body,” she said.

Santiago said that in Asia, the Philippines is one of several countries that follow the US presidential system, including Indonesia, South Korea, and Taiwan; but only Japan follows the parliamentary system.

She said that if a constituent assembly votes to change over to a parliamentary system, the voter would refuse to ratify it in a plebiscite.

“The Filipino is jealous of his personal vote in a presidential election. He will not surrender it to members of parliament, who would have the sole power to elect the prime minister,” she said.

Santiago said that the present presidential system guarantees that most important decisions are made by a broad majority, unlike a parliamentary system where a minority group could impose its will on the nation.

“The only thing you can say in favor of a parliamentary system is that you can avoid a deadlock between the President and Congress. A parliamentary system avoids legislative paralysis, but the downside is dominance by the administration party,” she said.

“In any event, the time left is too short. Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, we would all have to wait. At this time, charter change is not a political but a judicial question,” she said.

THE CONTRACTORS

Privilege Speech on 26 January 2009)

Mr. President:

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a contractor is: “one who contracts for the completion of an entire project, including purchasing all materials, hiring and paying subcontractors, and coordinating all the work.” That is according to the dictionary. But to many Filipinos, a contractor is simply defined as a crook, who engages in gross overpricing of materials, pays salaries to ghost employees, produces shoddy public works that endanger the public, and gladly hands out massive, clandestine, unreported campaign contributions in cash to candidates, in order to cover up his tracks.

The Senate is poised to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, on whether three Filipino contractors “debarred” or blacklisted by the World Bank, may have bribed certain public officials, and otherwise engaged in criminal conduct, such as collusion in bidding for projects. But the House of Representatives has beaten the Senate to the draw, although their public hearing produced not an investigation, but a comic opera.

Some honorable representatives reportedly joined in singing a hallelujah chorus to the almighty contractors, from whom all good things come. The honorable investigators reportedly morphed into opera singers by sending up embarrassing paeans of praise for the contractors under fire. Thus, once more, the political power of big-time contractors proved itself to be awesome.

We are not talking of penny ante contractors. We are talking of giants in the construction industry: E.C. de Luna Construction, Cavite Ideal Construction, and CM Pancho Construction. Here are some of their multimillion public works projects over the years. First, E.C. de Luna Construction:

• Tagaytay-Palico Road – P104.20 M


• Road concreting Palawan – P322.20 M


• Tagaytay City Flyover – P292.94 M


• Road construction Misamis Occidental and Zamboanga del Norte – P254.83 M


• Road improvement San Jose, Patnongon – P126.68 M


• Overlay Asluman Road, Iloilo and Antique – P 997.57 M


• Iloilo East Coast – Capiz Road – P 530.59 M

Second, Cavite Ideal Construction:

• Naga-Toledo Road – P 805.6 M


• Sablayan Road, Occidental Mindoro – P 889.3 M


• Tacloban Road, Leyte – P 964 M


• C-5 flyover, Metro Manila – P 765 M


• Putlan bridge, Nueva Ecija – P 205.6 M


• Lotus Central Mall, Imus, Cavite – P 425 M


• Rehab project Echague, Isabela – P 587.9 M


• Civil works for Sta. Maria bridge, Ilocos Sur – P 97.6 M


• Civil works Baybay Bato, Leyte, Cebu – P 856.2 M


• Civil works Reina Mercedes, Isabela – P 562.5 M


• Macalelon Road, Quezon – P 654.7 M


• Aritao Road, Baguio – P 1,422.4 M


• SLEX Service Road, Metro Manila – P 524.4 M


• Arterial road, South Leyte – P 829.7 M

Third, CM Pancho Construction. I have a list of their projects, but without the cost.

However, the point common to all these three contractors is that they are masters of their universe, and they could be grand players in politics.

In blacklisting these three contractors, the World Bank Group Sanctions Board said, in its decision dated 12 January 2009:

3. The Notice relies on circumstantial and testimonial evidence of collusion in order to establish that the Respondents engaged in corrupt practices and collusive and other fraudulent practices in connection with the World Bank-financed project. The circumstantial evidence consists of alleged indicia of collusion, including high bid prices, symmetrical relationships among bids, bids containing significant errors, “clusters” of bids, “strange and unnatural” bid prices, submission of fraudulent bid securities, and inconsistent application of criteria within the prequalification process. The testimonial evidence is in the form of statements from multiple witnesses, some identified in the Notice, some anonymous, and others whose identity was withheld from the Respondents as confidential materials. . . .

8. In the case of Respondents E.C. de Luna and Eduardo C. de Luna, the Sanctions Board determined that the appropriate sanction would be debarment for an indefinite period. In determining this sanction, the Sanctions Board took into account, inter alia, E.C. de Luna’s position as designated winner in the collusive scheme and also the multiple witness statements identifying E.C. de Luna and Mr. Eduardo C. de Luna as ringleaders in this scheme. The Sanctions Board considered as a further aggravating factor that these Respondents had engaged in multiple instances of misconduct, concluding that this conduct was sufficiently egregious as to warrant the most severe sanction.

I wish I were a contractor, instead of a lawyer. Instead of having to be honest, competent, and hardworking, I can grow fabulously rich, and maybe reduce certain legislators to jelly. Instead of reading myself blind, I could just bribe public works and local government officials. Instead of going to boring church every Sunday, darn it, I can just build an entire church and thus secure the redemption of my immortal soul. Instead of serving as a moving target for paid character assassins and expensive PR firms whose only expertise in journalism is bribery of media practitioners who inhabit their pockets, I would be canonized by media.

If I were a contractor, I would just buy off unpleasantness, such as adverse publicity or a congressional investigation. How convenient in a country whose many things are for sale, including men’s souls.

But I digress. After the Senate reorganization, I did not apply, nor did I particularly want, but was nevertheless appointed, as economic affairs chair. When I started on my duties and examined the records, I found that four resolutions on the World Bank scandal were filed, and all were referred to my committee. The three separate resolutions filed by Sen. Roxas, Sen. Legarda, and Sen. Revilla were all referred on 21 November 2007. The fourth resolution by Sen. Lacson was referred on 19 January 2009. With all the four resolutions, economic affairs was the primary committee, while both public works and finance were the secondary committees.

After session was resumed this January, I set a public hearing for tomorrow. I ordered invitations to be sent out, and I buckled down and read the background file. However, last Wednesday, 21 January 2009, a fifth resolution by Sen. Roxas was called for first reading, and would have been routinely assigned to economic affairs. But Sen. Pangilinan suddenly filed a motion for reconsideration to transfer the referral to either the public works or blue ribbon committees. Sen. Roxas, who was formerly chair of the economic affairs committee and author of the latest resolution, objected to the motion. I was no longer in session hall.

The next day when the staff reported the incident to me, I was as shocked as if I had suffered multiple stab wounds. The first stab wound came from behind. In my two terms as senator, the approved parliamentary behavior has been to show respect to a committee chair, by consulting her first, before trying to remove a subject from her jurisdiction. It is just elementary courtesy, but it was denied me.

I immediately dashed off a letter to Sen. Zubiri, the majority leader, filing my opposition on the ground of laches. Laches is the doctrine in equity, by which a court denies relief to a complainant who has unreasonably delayed in asserting the claim, when that delay has prejudiced the party against whom relief is sought. In other words, laches is sleeping on your rights.

The referral of the first three resolutions were made to my committee more than a year ago, in November 2007. Why did not Sen. Pangilinan file a timely motion for reconsideration? At that time, he was majority leader and ex officio chair of the rules committee. Why did he wait more than a year until the committee chairmanship had been assigned to me?

Under the Senate Rules, all four committees involved – economic affairs, public works, finance, and blue ribbon – have overlapping legitimate jurisdictions over the subject. However, the Senate President chose to make the referral no less than four times to the economic affairs committee. Thus, there is no problem with the committee. Perhaps, the only problem is . . . me?

The next day I received a second stab wound. The majority leader was quoted as saying that, without consultation, he had decided to make a new referral to the blue ribbon committee. He cited a consensus allegedly reached in caucus that all investigations of government anomalies should be assigned to the blue ribbon committee.

In effect, does this mean that blue ribbon would have a monopoly of all criminal investigations? Then it should also assume the duty of filing the corresponding bill on each and every subject matter, instead of just filing a report with the Ombudsman. And does this mean that even the committee with regulatory jurisdiction over the subject matter has no personality to participate, even only as a secondary committee? Then every committee would be reduced to administrative research.

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the Senate to vest its power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in just one out of some 36 committees? Doesn’t this alleged consensus amount to a gag rule with respect to every committee chair? For every senator has his or her own style of presiding. I respectfully remind you that the Constitution authorizes the Senate to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, but only “in accordance with its duly published Rules of Procedures.” Has this Senate published this alleged rule on exclusivity?

In the Senate Rules defining the jurisdiction of each committee, the Rules uses the term “all matters.” The Rule does not use the term “exclusive” with respect to the jurisdiction of the blue ribbon committee. For this committee, the Rules merely uses the clause “all matters relating to, including investigation.” If the intention was to change the meaning, then the rule should be formally amended in writing, and published. Otherwise, this alleged consensus should be put to a vote in plenary session.

But putting aside this issue of statutory construction, why make this alleged consensus retroactive? The resolutions were first referred to the economic affairs committee over a year ago, in November 2007, when the consensus had not yet been reached.

If the consensus is that only blue ribbon can investigate government anomalies, then the motion should have sought transfer to the blue ribbon committee alone. But the motion sought transfer to the public works committee, or to the blue ribbon committee. So I demand to know: why is it acceptable to assign the subject to either public works or to blue ribbon, but not to economic affairs?

It is obvious that the Senate probe of the World Bank blacklisted contractors will have little legislative value, because it has been overtaken by events. Pres. Arroyo has already ordered the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate the subject. The Ombudsman is already conducting preliminary investigation of the criminal cases, and she is scheduled to release the results in February.

The World Bank itself has already identified the following administrative remedies:

• An independent permanent assessment and technical audit that strengthens transparency of the bidding process.


• Enhanced processes for procurement, financial management, internal controls, and audit of the road management agencies.


• Inclusion of a new and innovative coalition of citizen and road users group, called “Road Watch” in the project management setup.

The only value of a Senate hearing would likely be publicity for reelectionist politicians, and other candidates. There might be some political value in Sen. Lacson’s disclosure, if any, of the public official who allegedly received P70 million in bribes.

Last December, the World Bank issued a policy research working paper entitled “Grand Corruption in Utilities.” The paper states:

Grand corruption . . . includes cases when politicians or high-ranking civil servants manipulate a country’s management or regulation of infrastructure industries to gain exclusive benefits. It can be a “purely” public sector phenomenon or involve both public and private agents. In the first case, state-owned public service providers serve as tools for politicians, who benefit in the form of personal revenues, bolstered positions, or party contributions. In the case of public-private interactions, private sector actors used bribes to influence the form of the market or contractual terms at the cost of consumer welfare. Sometimes these phenomena are described as crony capitalism, in which political networks dominate important private assets, or state capture, in which private firms are able to influence public power to their own benefit. (Emphasis added.)

.

The only salient issue in the probe is: who are the public officials involved in crony capitalism, and in state capture? There is a complication, because under international law, the government cannot subpoena World Bank officials, or subpoena the written report of its Department of Institutional Integrity. However, it appears that the World Bank has furnished copies of its report to the finance secretary and to the Ombudsman, and we can subpoena these local officials. But the Philippine government has no authority to substitute its own disciplinary judgment for that of the World Bank.

If the Senate probe has little legislative value, why bother to insult me by removing it from my committee? Is the influence of the contractors so strong that they can now determine who shall investigate them? Am I disqualified because I happen to be the only former RTC judge in the present Senate? I feel like Julius Caesar, after he was stabbed by Cassius. The hostility is as palpable as the pain.

In this chamber, I am the only recipient of the Magsaysay Award for government service. I have proved that I will fight the crooks in government at any time, at any place. But to ask me to squabble with my own colleagues in the workplace for scraps of power is unacceptable. This bloodsport is extremely distasteful to me. If my fellow senators do not like my style in presiding at public hearings on scandals, that is their problem.

Many of our colleagues in this lawmaking body are non-lawyers. And of the few lawyers, even fewer have spent enough time in trial courts. I was a multi-awarded RTC judge for five years. I taught Remedial Law, aka the Rules of Court, in UP for ten years. Despite these credentials that I am obliged to recite, there is now a move to prevent me from presiding at a picayune public hearing on the blacklisted World Bank contractors.

If my critics wish to vaporize or neutralize me, that is their impossible dream. But it is a different matter if my own colleagues wish to turn me into a monkey who sees nothing, hears nothing, and says nothing. I cannot remain in the Senate and consent to be emasculated. Hence, I express in the strongest terms my disgust at this transparent attempt to play puerile power games with me. I do not think that the public will be thrilled, much less edified, to watch senators fighting for turf, as if the territory of corruption were not extensive enough in this corrupt country.

Let me serve notice that if I continue to be treated without the respect that I am entitled to as a co-equal senator, even only because of my age and my experience, I shall be compelled to tender my resignation as Senator of the Philippines, and to bring this issue directly to the Filipino people. Let me ask the three big-time contractors – E.C. de Luna Construction, Cavite Ideal Construction, and CM Pancho Construction: Are you people behind this move to prevent me from presiding at the hearing tomorrow? Are you happy now?

May I know if I am permanently barred from presiding at the investigation of any scandal, even if it directly falls under the jurisdiction of the committee on economic affairs and on foreign relations, both of which I chair? If so, I respectfully move to submit this alleged monopoly consensus to a vote on the floor.

Meantime, Mr. President, out of delicadeza, I leave to the sound discretion of our colleagues the question of the scheduled public hearing tomorrow, and who shall preside over it. Because of its urgency for the public interest, I shall deliver tomorrow afternoon the sponsorship speech on the baselines bill, and then proceed to interpellation.

I avail of my parliamentary privilege, and I refuse to take any questions. Instead, I shall now walk out of this Senate, to express my strong personal disgust at the exhibition by some of our colleagues of the absence of common decency, and the failure of parliamentary conduct, in connection with the big-time contractors blacklisted by the World Bank.

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.

MIRIAM: JUDGE, NOT SENATE, SHOULD DETAIN BOLANTE

Bolante’s detention by the Senate might be unconstitutional. It appears that there is a conflict between the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and the Senate Rule on detention for contempt.
 

On the one hand, the Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. On the other hand, the Senate Rules provides that the committee may punish for contempt any witness who testifies falsely or evasively.

 The Supreme Court, in interpreting the constitutional provision, has repeatedly emphasized that there is a difference between a mere witness and the accused. It appears that Bolante is not a mere witness, or a mere person of interest, meaning a suspect. He is in fact the accused in what seems to be a criminal case for violation of certain criminal laws, including perjury, malversation of public funds, and plunder.  

Since Bolante is the accused, he can refuse outright to take the stand as a witness. In the latest 2007 case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies, the Court repeated the rule that an accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. The Court said: “Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any or all questions.”

 The Court explained that the right of the accused against self-incrimination also applies to respondents in administrative investigations, such as legislative inquiries in aid of legislation. The Court laid down the test for determining whether the right of the accused against self-incrimination can be invoked: administrative investigations should “partake of the nature of, or are analogous to criminal proceedings.”

 The Supreme Court has applied the exception in favor of the accused in administrative cases and proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding, or was analogous to a criminal proceeding. The Court first applied the exception in the 1962 case of Cabal v. Kapunan. It continues to be quoted with approval by the present Supreme Court. In the 2006 case of Rosete v. Lim, the present Supreme Court ruled: “It is likewise the opinion of the Court that said exception applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings that control.”  

In Standard, the Court ruled that the persons summoned by the Senate could not invoke the rule against self-incrimination, because they were summoned merely as witnesses. Thus, the facts in Standard are different from the Bolante case. But the ruling remains the same. More specifically, the Court in the 2007 Standard case cited with approval the ruling in the 1985 case of Galman v. Pamaran, that the right against self-incrimination applies to all cases in which the person is sought to be punished.

 My interpretation of the 2007 Standard ruling is: in legislative inquiries, the Senate may compel a mere witness to testify under oath, but it cannot compel the accused himself to testify. If the Court cannot compel the accused to testify, neither can a Congress committee.

 This ruling is based on the distinction between the purpose of a trial court, and the purpose of a legislative inquiry. In the 2007 case, the Court ruled: “The prosecution of offenders by the prosecutorial agencies and the trial before the courts is for the punishment of persons who transgress the law. The intent of legislative inquiries, on the other hand, is to arrive at a policy determination, which may or may not be enacted into law.”

 In the same case, the Court also said that a Congress committee cannot penalize a violator, except when it exercises the power to punish for contempt. However, the Court was talking about a mere witness, and not about the accused himself.

 Parenthetically, under the Rules of Court, while a judge may summarily punish a person for direct contempt, meaning, misbehavior in the presence of the Court, the citation for direct contempt is punished only by a fine of no more than P2,000, or imprisonment of no more than ten days or both.

 If the Senate continues to detain Bolante, the detention might be unconstitutional, because it appears that the Senate has already enough inputs to arrive at policy determination, which is the sole purpose of a legislative inquiry. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee’s power is limited only to the filing of a committee report recommending that Bolante should be charged before the Ombudsman.  

The Court has ruled that the Senate’s recommendation, along with the evidence, constitutes the boundary of Senate jurisdiction: “At best, the recommendation, along with the evidence contained in such a Report, would be persuasive, but it is still up to the prosecutorial agencies and the courts to determine the liabilities of the offender.”

 The question may be raised on whether Bolante waived his right against self-incrimination, by appearing and testifying before the Senate. I respectfully submit that he made no such waiver. It was his right to narrate his version to us – no matter how outrageous, as I myself pointed out during the first hearing – but he still retains the right to refuse to take the witness stand at a farther point.

 Even on sick leave, I issue this humble statement, in the hope that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee will consider the jurisprudence. My humble proposal is that Bolante, on his motion, should be released. (Anyway, he might file a motion for temporary release for Christmas, which has to be granted for humanitarian grounds). Immediately thereafter, the Blue Ribbon Committee could submit to the Senate in plenary session a partial report recommending that the Ombudsman should immediately conduct preliminary investigation and file the case before the Sandiganbayan. There, Bolante will have to be detained unless he posts bail. However, if the case filed against him is plunder, which is nonbailable, then he would continue to be in detention.

 Despite my own personal assessment that Bolante is stonewalling, as a constitutional scholar, I respectfully submit that all Congress members are bound by the constitutional warning that the rights of persons appearing in legislative inquiries should be respected.

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.

Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview after the Senate hearing on the 'Euro generals'

There is a very close parallelism with the Bolante case with the Euro generals case. The people who are likely to be accused in a criminal prosecution by the Ombudsman are obviously covering up for people higher up than themselves. That’s why I keep repeating to General Dela Paz that he has to be prepared to go to jail, if he continues to operate in a misplaced sense of esprit de corps or out of a misguided sense of honor. He should not try to cover up for his superiors not only because it is a distorted sense of being a gentleman in a PMA sense but also because it will serve as a bad precedent in the campaign against corruption. 
  
The superior officials can always bribe or threaten a middle-level official to take the rap for them, and in that way we will never be able to clean our country of corruption. I really just feel sorry for Gen. Dela Paz and I wish that he would change his mind because he could do the country a genuine service if he tells the truth. 

There are so many inconsistencies in his testimony and those of his colleagues that altogether there is simply no credibility in the story they have created for themselves. For example, the most telling point there is that, according to the certification of the money changer, money started to be exchanged from pesos to euros before the actual release of the money as testified to by the PNP budget officer. This alone is indicative that the PNP fact-finding report is a cover-up report. It is intended to place guilt on Dela Paz and draw attention away from his superiors who may have issued the orders themselves, or at the very least participated in the scam. 

I have already explained that the money which the PNP report calls “government funds” may not be legal government funds at all but maybe the result of another scam within the PNP which I call the PNP Recruit Scam. They are given money from January to December to recruit young trainees for the police but they will appoint these trainees until after six months to one year and will not return the money either. They will keep it for themselves in the PNP. So I have estimated that from 2005 up to, let’s say, 2010, that would amount to P700 million pesos. Just one fund alone. Ano pa kayang mga pondo sa PNP na pinagtatago and that they keep at their own disposal and exercise full discretion over. 

In the case of Dela Paz, bakit pa siya binigyan ng ganyang kalaking halaga para lang pang-extra baka may mangyari? Iyan ang tinatawag na contingency fund. Una, sabi ng COA, hindi legal magbigay ng contingency fund. At lahat ng mga public school teachers at iba pang empleyado ng gobyerno na nagpunta abroad alam iyon, walang tinatawag na contingency fund. 

Pangalawa, maliban diyan, pagkatapos mag-swear under oath si Gen. Versoza in the first hearing na sabi niya “I swear under oath na ang pera na iyon ay para sa contingency purposes, pang-extra lang.” Afterwards sumulat ba naman sa atin na “Puwede ba tayong mag-executive session kasi ang pera ay pambili ng military equipment.” Kaya ayoko nang mag-executive session dahil ibig niyang sabihin nagsinungaling pala siya either in the first hearing or when he wrote his letter to me dahil hindi naman puwede na contingency fund na, pang-military equipment pa. Pagkatapos meron tayong kasunduan sa Amerika na kapag bumili ng military equipment, kailangan galing lang sa Amerika. Ngayon sasabihin nila na hindi naman nakalagay doon ay ‘police equipment’. Maski totoo iyon, bakit si Gen. Versoza mismo ang nagsabi na puwede naming ipaliwanag sa inyo na ito ay pambili ng military equipment. So napakarami ng inconsistencies. 

The saying in Latin when you are evaluating evidence as a trial judge is falsus in unum, falsus in pluribum. If you tell a lie at one point, the judge is justified in presuming that you are lying in all other points. For me, itong mga deklarasyon nila are all self-interested, that is to say it is all meant to protect certain people even at the cost of their own liabilities. 

Dapat imbestigahan diyan si Gen. Versoza at si Sec. Puno dahil sa ilalim ng mga Administrative Orders ng Office of the President, sila lamang ang may karapatan na mag-apruba ng official travel. Kaya imbestigahan kung bakit sila nagbigay ng sang-ayon sa mga travels na ito na kuwestiyonable ang pagdala ng P700 million. Alalahanin niyo sa umpisa nitong eskandalo, itong sina Sec. Puno at Gen. Versoza ay nagsabi na wala naming eskandalo iyon, pang-emergency lang naman nila iyon, at ibabalik naman nila iyon. Ngayon, sinasabi nila sa kanilang fact-finding committee report na hindi sila nagbigay ng pahintulot maski kanino para sa contingency fund. Nagpalit ang kanilang sinabi. Kung palit-palit, iyan na ang sinasabi ko: falsus in unum, falsus in pluribum. Kaya kawawa itong si Dela Paz, nagiging scapegoat lang sa paningin ko. 

What should be done to Gen. Versoza? 

Dapat i-preliminary investigation dahil wala naman kaming ganyang kapangyarihan. Ang gusto ko ay i-preliminary investigation hindi lamang si Dela Paz, Gen. Rentoy at itong mga accountable officers, kundi isali na rin sa preliminary investigation rin si Sec. Puno at Gen. Versoza. Otherwise, the public will again complain. There will be a big public howl that we’re only running after the small fish and the big fish keep getting away. 

Should they both be suspended while being investigated? 

Nasa Presidente iyan. It is not a finding of guilt. It is simply a way to prevent the superior officials from manipulating the situation and taking certain documents, or threatening or bribing certain people to testify in a certain way. They can do it out of a sense of delicadeza. 

Should Dela Paz be held under house arrest? 

Hindi na, dahil kawawa. Halos naiiyak na kanina. Nakikita niya ang kinabukasan niyang napakalabo dahil inaamin niya laha na kanya lahat ng kasalanan. Ewan ko kung natatakot siya o nagkamali lang siya, akala niya ay marangal na paraan. Pero nakikita mo na naiiyak na siya dahil naaalala niya ang mga anak niya at ang asawa niya. Humiling siya na huwag na lang pilitin na tumestigo ang asawa niya, pinagybigyan ko naman. Naaawa na lang ako sa kanya. 

In fact, we issued an order right now the Sergeant-at-Arms ng Senate na gumawa na ng affidavit of recognizance na ang ibig sabihin ay lifted na ang warrant of arrest, kahit kailangan pa siya sa mga susunod pang mga hearing. Palayain na at pauuwin na siya basta mangako lang sila ng abugado niya na kung kailangan ay pumunta siya dito at huwag siyang umalis ng bansa hanggang matapos ang imbestigasyon. 

Are the savings from the trainee fund used as a gift for retiring generals? 

 Maaari dahil alam ko sa militar at sa police meron silang sistema na kapag magre-retire na, hindi lamang pondo ng gobyerno ang ibibigay sa magre-retire na opsiyal, kundi may kostumbre sila na alam naman ng lahat ngunit lingid sa publiko na kailangan ang mga kasunod nila na mga ranking officials na mananatili ay gumawa ng so-called ‘retirement fund’. Nangongolekta sila sa mga parokyano nila—mga drug lords, jueteng lords—at milyon ang binibigay sa kanila. Halimabawa sa AFP Chief of Staff, ang pagkasabi sa akin ay P50 milyon. Ganoon rin siguro sa PNP Chief.  

Marami silang pribelehiyo pagkatapos nilang magretire. But the most appalling is that the institution itself gives them an ‘underground’ retirement fund. Of course this is all raised through extortion from those who have been protected during the term of that exiting official. 

Siguro dine-deklara nila savings iyan at ire-realign. It is legally possible to realign it to another legitimate purpose but actually it could be a slush fund, an unknown secret fund from which they withdraw for personal reasons and for devious purposes.