MIRIAM: US TROOPS IN COMBAT UNDER VFA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Legislative Oversight Committee on the Visiting Forces Agreement, said that she plans to recommend to the Senate the abrogation of the RP-US VFA, because US troops are allegedly going beyond military exercises and have extended their presence in actual combat in Mindanao . 

“My reference is Col. David Maxwell, commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines ,” Santiago said. 

At the hearing held yesterday (Thursday), Santiago cited the publication Focus on the Global South, quoting Maxwell as saying: “The Philippine Constitution does not prohibit combat operations and provides an exception to this, if there is a treaty in force.” 

“By his own admission, Col. Maxwell is using the Task Force to engage in battle in Mindanao in the US war against terrorism, which includes the Abu Sayyaf and the Jemaah Islamiyah,” Santiago said. 

She said that although RP and US authorities claim that US troops in Mindanao are only engaging in so-called military exercises, this term is not used in the VFA itself. 

“The VFA never uses the term ‘military exercises.’ Instead, it uses the word ‘activities.’ This is the loophole in the VFA,” she said. 

She said that the Task Force deploys US forces in unconventional warfare and combat operations, and Maxwell himself admitted in a US interview that he is operating ‘under the guise of an exercise.’ 

Santiago said she suspects that there are “small-scale military bases” in Zamboanga City and in Sulu. 

Santiago also criticized the Supreme Court decision in the 2009 case of Nicolas v Romulo. 

“In Nicolas, the Court ruled that the US has complied with the Philippine constitutional requirement that the VFA should be recognized as a treaty by the US . I respectfully disagree,” she said. 

Santiago, last year’s Philippine nominee to the International Court of Justice, said that under the US Constitution, a treaty is an international agreement which the US President makes “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 

“The US Senate never consented to the VFA. In US law, it is not a treaty but an executive agreement. Therefore, it violates the RP constitutional requirement that foreign military troops will be allowed in the Philippines only under a treaty recognized as a treaty by the US ,” she said. 

Santiago said that the use of the word “visiting” in the VFA is misleading, because the US troops are still in the Philippines after 12 years. 

“If the US wants to use Philippine territory in its alleged war on terror, they will have to negotiate a treaty with the RP. In the meantime, in my humble view, the presence of US troops in Mindanao, and even worse, their participation in combat operations, are illegal,” she said.

MIRIAM SEEKS PROBE OF CABINET SENATORIABLES

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago is seeking a public investigation of funds used for alleged TV infomercials by certain cabinet members planning to run for the Senate.

“If they are using public funds, they are guilty of malversation. If they are using private funds, they are guilty of premature campaigning,” she said.

Santiago mentioned the case of one cabinet member who appears in a health infomercial, another who appears in a disaster preparedness infomercial, and still another in a tax payment infomercial.

“The Election Code bans and penalizes the election offense of premature campaigning. TV informercials are a pathetic way of seeking to go around the ban,” she said.

Last year, Santiago filed a petition with the Comelec to stop reelectionist senators from appearing as alleged commercial models of certain products advertised on billboards.

Although the senator alleged that some of her colleagues are violating the ban, the Comelec dismissed her petition, prompting her to elevate it to the Supreme Court where it is pending.

“We have to stop this culture of impunity among senators, cabinet members, and other public officials blatantly violating the law. Instead, the public should support a culture of accountability by asking for their disqualification,” she said.

Santiago said that if the present trend continues, all potential candidates for local and national offices will start campaigning by one ruse or another.

“The law imposes a ban, but many are doing what the law prohibits, because of the lackadaisical attitude of the Comelec. With its refusal to comply with the law, the Comelec is in effect cultivating a culture of impunity among politicians who break the law,” she said.

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.

MIRIAM SEES CHACHA NEXT YEAR, IF . . .

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that the Supreme Court holds the key to whether the charter change process will start next year.

“In general, the House of Representatives is in favor of charter change, while the Senate opposes. Which of these chambers will prevail will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court,” she said.

Santiago was guest speaker yesterday at Our Lady of Fatima University in Valenzuela City.

Santiago said that the House and the Senate are directly opposed on the issue on how to compute how many votes will be needed to convert Congress into a constituent assembly.

Santiago said the Constitution provides that it can be amended by ¾ votes of the Congress, and the issue is how to compute the ¾ votes.

“The House position is that first we should compute the total number of Congress members, which is 261 votes in all. If so, then only 195 votes are needed to change the charter,” she said.

Santiago said that the Senate objects to the House position, because it would mean that a senator has just the same vote as a representative, and because there are more representatives, the House will be able to outvote the Senate.

“By contrast, the Senate position is that charter change needs ¾ of the House, meaning 178 votes; plus ¾ of the Senate, meaning 17 votes,” she said.

Santiago said that even former Supreme Court justices and constitutional convention delegates are divided on the answer to this issue.

“The authoritative answer to this paramount threshold question can only be given by the Supreme Court,” she said.

Santiago said that as a constitutional law professor, in general she opposes any charter change, unless there are compelling reasons.

“One compelling reason for charter change is the imperative necessity to change the nationalistic provisions, in order that the Philippines can be globally competitive,” she said.

Santiago noted that many foreign firms do not want to invest in the Philippines , because the Constitution only allows them minority control of their own corporations.

“The second reason for charter change is the necessity to change from a unitary to a federal form of government, in order to solve the long-standing issue of Muslim separatism,” she said.

Santiago said that in a federal system, as in the US , each state is a virtual state within a state, resulting in a “system of dual sovereignty.”

“But we have to be extremely careful that in a federal system, the Constitution shall prohibit absolutely any right of secession. The absence of such a prohibition might cause a civil war, as it did in the US ,” she said.

MIRIAM TO SC: REPLACE BAR WITH ADMISSION TEST

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago appealed to the Supreme Court to implement her proposal made last year that the exams should be replaced by a law school admission test (LSAT).

“With the bar examination, we tell a failed student that after eight years of college, he cannot practice law. We’re wasting lives. With the LSAT, we tell the student that he should not even enter law school, if he does not have the aptitude for it,” she said.

Santiago made the statement during the budget hearing for the Supreme Court.

In the same hearing, Santiago asked the Comelec to explain why until now the collection of some P1 billion has not been completed from Mega-Pacific eSolutions, Inc., which was required to return the purchase price for automated counting machines, after the Supreme Court invalidated the contract.

Santiago also asked the Comelec to explain why until now, Comelec has not fully recovered some P260 million from the Philippine Multimedia Systems, for a similarly voided contract.

The senator also questioned Comelec for paying in full some P78 million in laminated voters ID, when the supplier has not yet fully complied with the contract.

Santiago said that in the last two elections the local voter turnout was less than 80 percent, but the Comelec procured supplies at 100 percent, plus ten percent contingency.

“If Comelec had been more scientific in estimating voter turnout, we could have saved some P 680 million,” Santiago said.

MIRIAM ELEVATES PREMATURE CAMPAIGN BAN TO SC

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago took her fight against premature campaign advertisements by filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Earlier, Santiago filed a similar petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which was dismissed with a comment that the Comelec is not the proper forum to resolve the constitutional issue she raised.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, argues that allowing rich and influential candidates to advertise themselves two years before the campaign period violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Santiago’s petition contains nine arguments:

• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine provided by the Constitution, when it dismissed Santiago’s earlier petition by transferring the burden of resolving the case to the SC;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred when it chose to ignore the glaring conflict between Section 79 and Section 80 of the Election Code, in effect abdicating the policy of the law to make sure that no candidate unfairly campaigns ahead of others by sheer audacity and mental dishonesty, making it appear that the ban applies only to a person who files a certificate of candidacy.
  
  Section 79 of the Election Code defines the terms “candidate” as a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy. The same section defines “election campaign” as “an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates”. Section 80, on the other hand, defines premature campaigning by imposing a ban on “any person, whether or not a voter or a candidate.”
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to resolve the conflict between Sections 79 and 80 in favor of Section 80 of the Election Code, inviting unscrupulous politicians to circumvent the prohibition against premature campaigning by filing his or her certificate of candidacy in the last day before the start of the campaign period to avoid prosecution;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in ruling that the ordinary meaning of Section 79 must apply, as a result, gravely ignoring the true intention of the law which is to provide equal opportunity to all candidates in the election;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that the SC, in Chavez v. Comelec,did not resolve the conflict between Sec. 70 and 80 of the Election Code. The SC’s decision simply stopped at an isolated reading of Section 79 and did not proceed to the logical conclusion dictated by the applicable rules of statutory construction that demanded an application of Section 80;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that neither did Lanot vs. Comelec resolve the conflict. While the SC, in its decision, recognized that an absurd conclusion results when the law is interpreted to mean that a person who has not yet filed a certificate of candidacy is not yet a candidate, it stopped short of definitively resolving the conflict between Sections 79 and 80 of the Election Code;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that the defense of free speech and free expression cannot be invoked to shield the circumvention of the Omnibus Election Code (the right to free speech and free expression cannot be exploited to exonerate unlawful electioneering);
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to accept that the exceptions under Section 80 of the Election Code no longer apply because of certain changes in electoral practices, such as the 1987 Constitution’s rejection of the two-party system, which was then valid when the Election Code was written;
  
• The Comelec gravely erred in ignoring the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause, our Constitution prohibits a statute to favor one class of candidates–-those who have the influence and money–-over another class – those do not have the same influence and money to engage in premature political advertising. In effect, a statute which discriminates between its subjects makes a classification where there is no “rational relationship” between legislative means and ends.

Santiago earlier slammed the Comelec for being “fainthearted” and “timid” when the commission dismissed her petition and refused to ban campaign activities by presidential wannabes.

Transcript of the interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

19 November 2007

On the continuation of the ZTE-NBN hearing
This is already a hypothetical case because the President has already ordered the cancellation of the ZTE contract… so wala na tayong pag-aawayan pa, kung hindi sino ang lumabag sa ating batas, dahil ang mga taong iyon—dahil nga napakalaking eskandalo ito—ay dapat idemanda sa Ombudsman. Pero ang Ombudsman ang may kapangyarihan na gumawa ng preliminary investigation, ibig sabihin imbestigahan ngayon kung may suspects tayo. Kaya kung iimbestigahin pa rin ng Senado, magiging doble na kasi hindi naman pwedeng ang Senado and mag-imbestiga para sa Ombudsman. If we conduct the investigation here in the Senate at this point, we will simply be anticipating and duplicating the function of the Ombudsman. In fact, we may even be accused of usurping the powers of the Ombudsman. Anyway, whatever happens at this point, the ultimate result will simply be an endorsement to the Ombudsman. So I believe that the Senate should now turn its attention to other more urgent matters such as the national budget, which is already upcoming.

If Sec. Neri cites executive privilege
In my view, this makes Mr. Neri suspect. We could just include him among those whose names we think the Ombudsman should investigate in a preliminary investigation. But there is no more point belaboring the facts because the Senate is not a fact-finding body. We are merely inquiring so that we will know what law to pass. We already know from all the hearings that have been conducted more or less what will be the shape of the law that is needed so that we can avoid this kind of a scandal in the future.

It will quite also set a precedent because kung ganun rin lang na pababayaan siya ng komite ng Senado ay pwede naman pala na i-subpoena ang mga testigo at sasabihin na lang nila na ayaw nila at may executive privilege sila. This is to set a deterrent to other people who might cover up the truth simply by citing executive privilege because as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said, the principle of executive privilege remains alive and kicking. It is just a question of making sure that the committees of Congress will not abuse this power.

News Release

25 September 2007

MIRIAM: ANOTHER SC JUSTICE BEHIND SMEAR?

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that an alleged smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago (no relation) could be part of a plot involving another Supreme Court justice, whose previous law firm is known to be interested in a lucrative Quezon City land dispute assigned to the female justice.

“I am not related to Justice Santiago, but I’ve personally known her since our UP college days. She’s impeccably honest, and a very religious widow who keeps to herself. She’s being pressured to inhibit herself in this case,” she said.

Santiago said that she suspects another Supreme Court justice, who used to belong to a big law firm, could be part of an orchestrated media plot to bring the female justice into disgrace, and compel her to inhibit herself from writing the decision.

“As a former RTC judge, I denounce the brazen campaign to make Justice Santiago look as if she was being offered a bribe. The story violates all known rules of evidence,” the senator said.
Santiago said it was “offensively ridiculous” that the bribe money of P10 million in a box would be brought to the Supreme Court office of the female justice.

The senator also pointed out that Daisy Cecilia Deles, a judicial staff officer, has already executed an affidavit denying that she was aware of any bribery attempt involving her former boss.
“This is a scenario out of thin air. The alleged eyewitness has already executed an affidavit that she did not witness any such thing. She recently resigned to avail of her retirement benefits, but that was sometime ago,” the senator said.

“It is plain diabolic to spin a routine staff retirement into a completely fictitious tale of alleged bribery. They are desperate, because Justice Santiago is known in legal circles to be as immovable as a rock,” the senator said.

Santiago warned that if the plot to discredit the female justice succeeds, then no public official will be immune from character assassination.

“I hope media keeps its head on this gossip. If it is given undue publicity, then any honest public official can be brought down by any criminal mob, just by sending a box of peso bills to the office, and paying off certain media practitioners to peddle the story. If they go far enough, I will call for a Senate probe into the actuations of those media practitioners,” she said.

The senator said that her strong sentiments on the alleged character assassination of the female justice were shared by the members of the UP WILOCI (Women Lawyers Circle), particularly Atty. Katrina Legarda, and by civil society, particularly civic leader Maribel Ongpin.

-o0o-

News Release

25 September 2007

MIRIAM: BOW TO SUPREME COURT, HALT SENATE PROBE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, joining Sen. Joker Arroyo, called for a halt in the Senate probe on the RP-China (ZTE) loan agreement, on the ground of “interdepartmental courtesy” to the Supreme Court.

“The Senate rules allow the inquiry to continue, despite a concurrent Supreme Court case. But it is better to give the Supreme Court enough breathing space, simply out of respect. The probe is adding to the political noise,” she said.

Santiago said that if the Senate blue ribbon and two other committees decide to continue the probe, she would continue to participate, after expressing her personal opinion.

“I have no power to halt the probe, but I will not snub it, because an individual senator generally follows a committee decision,” she said.

Santiago said that suspended loan negotiations must wait for final decision by the Supreme Court, which has already issued a TRO against it.

Santiago also said that if the Supreme Court allows the deal to be concluded, it would be an executive agreement, which does not need Senate concurrence but only Monetary Board approval.

“But the question of the alleged irregularities in its negotiation is a separate issue,” the senator said.

Santiago explained that after the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against ongoing negotiations, President Arroyo “had no option but to suspend the proceedings.”

In a privilege speech yesterday, Santiago said that the Constitution requires Senate concurrence for a “treaty or international agreement,” but the Supreme Court has consistently held that an executive agreement is an exception to this rule.

Santiago said that the loan agreement is an executive agreement, on the following grounds:

1. It is a soft loan and the risks to the nation are not significant.
   
   
2. It is not intended to affect Philippine laws.
   
   
3. It can be implemented without the enactment of subsequent legislation, save for the necessary provision in the national appropriations act.
   
   
4. Past foreign loan agreements have been upheld as valid executive agreement, notably in the 2007 Abaya and Kolonwel cases.
   
   
5. It is a short-term agreement.
   
   
6. The validity of an executive agreement is considered a norm of international law, and more specifically as a principle of international customary law. In international law as in Philippine constitutional law, custom is the best interpreter of the laws. Optimum legum interpres consuetudo.
   
   
7. To require Senate concurrence would compromise the constitutional power of the President as chief diplomatic officer.

Santiago said the deal can only be concluded, if Malacanang follows a five-step process consisting of a Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Forward Obligational Authority, Full Powers to the Department of Finance (DOF), signing by the DOF of the loan agreement, Monetary Board approval, and congressional appropriation in the national budget.

-o0o-

Press Release

18 July 2007

MIRIAM URGES PROPER SC ROLE IN SONA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, recommended to Congress that during the SONA ceremonies on Monday, the Supreme Court Chief Justice and associates justices should be invited to walk into the House chamber as part of the ceremonial supporting ensemble for the President.


She also recommended that the justices should be assigned special seats near the front of the session hall of the House of Representatives.

The senator also recommended to Malacañang to name one cabinet member as the designated survivor, in order to provide continuity in the line of succession, if a catastrophe disables the President, Vice-President, and other succeeding officers gathered in the House chamber.

Santiago , citing United States practice, also urged President Arroyo in her speech to use the formula “The State of our Nation is very Strong” or a very similar phrase.

“As a constitutional law scholar, I find nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Chief Justice, after official invitation, to play a more visible role in the SONA protocol. In my view, Supreme Court justices, if properly acknowledged, lend an air of non-congressional celebrity and solemnity to a political event,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that in the U.S. , Supreme Court justices rarely applaud or participate in standing ovations during the speech.

“The justices must remain impartial to any political positions, statements, or objectives during the speech,” she said.

Santiago sent an urgent letter yesterday (July 18) to Senate President Manny Villar and Speaker Jose de Venecia, with copies furnished to Chief Justice Reynato Puno and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

-o0o-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview

31 January 2007

On the appointment of Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura as associate justice of the Supreme Court:

It’s natural. There has been many precedence in the past, and he is qualified and competent. He is an outsider, so in effect, the President is serving notice that she does not feel bound by the “insider rule” that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals would like to insist upon. There is no basis for the so-called “insider rule.” Gusto nila kapag may bakante, manggagaling lamang sa kanila. Nachura, as you know is an outsider. He is not, for example, a justice of the Court of Appeals.

On the appointment of Atty. Agnes Devanadera as new Solicitor General:

This means that her scope of jurisdiction will be expanded from civil cases to criminal cases, and, particularly, constitutional cases. So she assumes much more responsibility, because her expertise is limited only to corporate or administrative law. She will now have to assume greater responsibility because she has to have knowledge of criminal procedure, plus constitutional law.

(My advise to Atty. Devanadera is to) read my books, because they are updated. Since many of the members of the legal profession in our country are still going by rote, and they have not realized that jurisprudence is moving so fast. The case law is so high even for the appellate courts, that much of the jurisprudence has changed since they have been in college.

-o0o-

Press Statement

7 December 2006

WHY I SUPPORT CHIEF JUSTICE PUNO

Early Wednesday evening, Pres. Arroyo visited me at my house in La Vista, Quezon City. She read me the riot act, and I calmed down.

After the president filled me in, I agreed that Justice Reynato Puno (Rey) deserves to be appointed Chief Justice. It appears that Rey was not a party to the plot to keep me out of the Supreme Court. On the contrary, it appears that Rey himself has been a victim of infernal scheming within the Court.

Pres. Arroyo also told me that she would refrain from reappointing any regular member of the Judicial and Bar Council. One of them is Raoul Victorino, who is anyway disqualified because while he is supposed to represent the private sector, he is actually a retired Sandiganbayan justice. This duplicitous spectacle is like a wolf parading in sheep’s clothing.

Listen, children, and I shall tell you a bloodcurdling bedtime story of political intrigue.

The plot against me was ostensibly led by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban (Art). But he and Victorino were apparently merely carrying out the orders of the person jerking their puppet strings, their acknowledged lord and master, former Sen. Jovito Salonga (Jovy). Last year, Jovy prevailed on Pres. Arroyo to appoint Art as Chief Justice, thus jumping over Rey who, at that time, was already senior associate justice.

Jovy was apparently emboldened by his newfound power to muscle in on the presidency, which has always been his foremost heart’s desire. He demanded that Pres. Arroyo should give him the head of Comelec Chair Benjamin Abalos. For lack of constitutional power, Pres. Arroyo was unable to accommodate Jovy’s imperious demand. Hence, he turned against her, and any person he perceives is close to her.

After media reported that I had been nominated for Chief Justice, Jovy immediately issued the negative comment that I should not be in the Supreme Court, because allegedly I am not a team player. In his dotage, Jovy seems to have mistaken judicial work for the sport of basketball.

Debonaire Art reportedly hates reclusive Rey with a passion. Rey, like me, is a U.P. law graduate and a former Collegian editor – a position of national renown. Art, by contrast, is not a U.P. law graduate, and earned renown as owner of a travel agency. He also earned notoriety for a lengthy dalliance with a former beauty queen. But in his effusive resume, he likes to project himself as a family man. Perhaps mental honesty is not a requirement for Chief Justice.

Before he retired last December 6, Art was reportedly tireless in urging Pres. Arroyo not to appoint Rey. Among Art’s protégées for the post were Justices Antonio Carpio and Leonardo Quisumbing (Leo). A former Collegian editor, Leo of late has been occupied with issuing press releases pressing for observance of the newly-minted “insider rule.” It would have benefited him, since he stood second in line to Rey, who at that time was destined by his enemies to be bumped off again.

Then there was even a banner headline story that the Court would collectively insist on an alleged “insider rule,” thus preparing the public mind for my repudiation. That deliberate leak to the press was part of a sinister plot to out me. To carry out the plot, Art even called up a Malacañang associate to pledge insincerely that he would support my nomination, thus deliberately misleading Malacañang. To quote Shakespeare: “Zounds! What a merry web they weave!” In Tagalog, walang hiya, ah!

I have it in good authority that after my fulmination against Art in the Senate, the majority of Supreme Court justices were not angry, but instead elated. They have never liked him, because last year he grabbed the Chief Justice post from Rey, without any qualification, except the good fortune to be protected by a powerful padrino. Some justices have sent word that if I wish, they will send me Court documents against Art.

So my blood is boiling against Art Panganiban and Jovy Salonga. I have long lost any respect for Jovy, because he is malicious. At the necrological service held at the Senate for his contemporary, former Sen. Arturo Tolentino, Jovy delivered a funeral oration, but created a scandal. He recounted the political past, praised himself as a principled statesman, and denounced Mr. Tolentino for having allegedly betrayed those principles. All these, while the erstwhile eloquent Mr. Tolentino was lying horizontally in a coffin, unable to defend himself. What kind of man finds it impossible to say the good about the dead?

Jovy and Art tried their best to fix a funeral for Rey and me, and in the process they also tried to dupe us into fighting each other.

I congratulate Chief Justice Rey Puno, and wish him good luck. Let justice prevail, and let the plotters fall!

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

6 December 2006
From Inq7.net

SANTIAGO PRESSES FIGHT VS SUPREME COURT

By Juliet Labog-Javellana
Published on page A2 of the December 6, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

PURSUING her fight against the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which had dropped her from its list of candidates for Supreme Court Chief Justice, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago yesterday urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo not to appoint a permanent replacement for Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban but a temporary one when the latter retires tomorrow.

In a letter to the President, which she read into the Senate record, Santiago said Ms Arroyo should appoint an acting Chief Justice because the judiciary’s nomination process was a failure and was tainted with corruption.

Santiago was to take her battle to Malacañang last night, where she was to meet with the President.

Santiago also advised Ms Arroyo not to appoint Associate Justice Reynato Puno Chief Justice, despite the latter being the most senior of the four candidates for the position.

“If you were to appoint Mr. Puno, the public will suspect -- with good reason -- that he had unlawfully promised to decide in favor of the administration the controversial imminent case on the constitutionality of a constituent assembly (Con-ass). Thus, the Supreme Court and the constituent assembly would both lose all credibility,” Santiago said.

The woman senator was referring to the battle for Con-ass in Congress that the Arroyo administration was still fighting for in order to amend the Constitution despite having lost the case in the Panganiban Supreme Court.

Santiago instead suggested that an incumbent justice who was not on the short list of nominees be appointed acting Chief Justice until a “valid nomination process” could be undertaken. She said she would withdraw her own nomination if there were such another screening.

“I will ask the President when I see her [tonight] to appoint an acting Chief Justice. I’m going to tell her the JBC has lost all logic, all reason (for its existence),” Santiago told reporters.

On Monday, a seething Santiago had made mincemeat of Panganiban and the JBC in a cardiac-inducing privilege speech after the JBC had dropped her and Justice Antonio Carpio from the short list of nominees for Chief Justice.

A furious Santiago tagged Panganiban as the mastermind of a “thinly-veiled” plot to drop her from contention because she was a Supreme Court outsider. She said she was also excluded because ex-Senate President Jovito Salonga, Panganiban’s former boss, was Ms Arroyo’s nemesis.

In her letter to the President, Santiago told Ms Arroyo the nomination process was attended by irregularities and should be repeated.

She narrated how Panganiban had forced her to waive her public interview by the JBC after the five incumbent justices who were also candidates refused to submit to the process.

“I did not spontaneously waive my right … I was compelled to do so,” she said, adding that after she did not go through with the interview, the eight JBC members went to see her in the holding room to thank her for her “cooperation.”

Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan and Senator Edgardo Angara, however, expressed reservations about Santiago’s proposal to appoint an acting Chief Justice.

Pangilinan, ex-officio member of the JBC, said having an acting Chief Justice would place him or her in a situation where pressure could be applied on them by Malacañang if they wanted to keep their jobs.

Angara said there was no precedent for an acting Chief Justice and this should be avoided for the sake of stability in the judiciary.

For its part, Supreme Court spokesperson Ismael Khan Jr. said the high tribunal was unfazed by Santiago’s tirade because the court was more credible than the senator.

Khan said the court would rather leave it to the public to decide on Santiago’s accusations.

“Well, it will depend on how the public will react to that,” he said.

Admitting Santiago’s remarks were “uncalled for,” including describing members of the tribunal as “idiots,” Khan said the Supreme Court was not bound to react on them because they were uttered during a privilege speech delivered in the Senate.

“Whether the court feels maligned or not, it will depend on how the people will take it,” he said. With Armand N. Nocum

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

5 December 2006
From Inq7.net

SANTIAGO SLAMS JBC, SC AFTER BEING DROPPED FROM SHORTLIST

By Juliet Labog-Javellana
Posted date: December 04, 2006

SENATOR Miriam Defensor-Santiago is well-known as someone who does not mince words but on Monday she hit a new low.

After learning that she had been removed from the shortlist of candidates for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, she lost no time lambasting the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which had removed her name from contention, called the present high court members idiots and corrupt, and said she was spitting in the face of retiring Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his mentor, former senator Jovito Salonga, for conspiring against her.

In a bright yellow dress, Santiago blew into the Senate like Supertyphoon “Reming” on Monday, and delivered a scathing privilege speech attacking the JBC and the Supreme Court.

“I’m not angry, Mr. President, I am not angry,” she began, addressing Senate President Manuel Villar.

“I am irate. I am foaming at the mouth. I’m homicidal. I’m suicidal. I’m humiliated, debased, degraded. And not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit in the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court.”

Only minutes earlier, Santiago, unaware the JBC had decided to drop her nomination, learned of it when the Inquirer contacted her while she was in her car on the way to the Senate.

“Is that so?” she said.

“I will say that I resent it very deeply. I take it very personally and I will see to it that while I remain in public office that every member of the JBC shall eventually be held to account for their partisanship. For this reason, I will participate in the Con-ass (constituent assembly) for the main purpose of abolishing the JBC for corruption,” she told the Inquirer.

She also made a manifestation on the floor that the Supreme Court’s budget be reduced to its 2005 level.

Santiago said Panganiban was the “mastermind of this thinly veiled plot” to exclude her from the nomination process because she was an “intimate political ally of the President.”

She challenged the SC, which she charged had manipulated the JBC, to point to any provision in the Constitution that said an outsider could not be appointed Chief Justice.

“Wala naman sa loob ng ating saligang batas, saan nila kinuha ang kapal ng mukha nila na magsabi na ang mga sarili lang nila ang maaring Chief Justice ng korte suprema (Where in the law of the land did they get their thick-skinned idea that only Supreme Court justices could be Chief Justice)?” she said.

Santiago said Panganiban was against her because his former boss, Salonga, was against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and wanted her [Santiago] out of the picture for being the Chief Executive’s ally.

She said Panganiban had even ordered her to waive her public interview by the JBC to save face for the five incumbent justices who had refused to submit to the interviews.

She said Panganiban had asked Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez to tell her to tell the media that she was waiving the interview.

“This Chief Justice, this twisted mind, sent Secretary Gonzalez to me so that their colleagues in the Supreme Court would not be subjected to the scrutiny of the public,” she said.

Santiago also questioned Panganiban’s own qualifications to be Chief Justice, saying that he was also an outsider.

“Pinagmamalaki ng Chief Justice na ito na naging bar topnotcher siya. Ha, ha, ha,” Santiago said, adding that bar topnotchers in the United States were laughed at because this meant they were not doing substantial legal work since they had plenty of time to review for the bar exams.

Santiago said she simply wanted to be nominated to the high court to disabuse the public of the myth that only court insiders could become Chief Justice.

“I said categorically to the President that I could not be appointed Chief Justice because I preferred the company of my colleagues in the Senate anytime, any day, any year to the company of those idiots in the Supreme Court,” she said.

“If the Filipino people thought that I was good enough to be president of the republic in 1992 were it not for the devilish and satanic machinations of the septuagenarian (former president Fidel V. Ramos) yet the JBC turned its back on public opinion. Who of them graduated with honors from UP? Let them take the law school aptitude test and let’s see if they will pass,” she said.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

30 November 2006
From Inq7.net

SENATOR SANTIAGO WAIVES SUPREME COURT "JOB INTERVIEW"

by Armand Nocum and Juliet Labog-Javellana

ONLY Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago showed up for the public interview that nominees for the post of Supreme Court Chief Justice are supposed to undergo.

None of the five SC associate justices aspiring to succeed Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban appeared at the Judicial and Bar Council yesterday, claiming that the JBC could very well evaluate their competence through their decisions.

Having learned that the Associate Justices Reynato Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Antonio Carpio were no-shows, Santiago opted to “waive” her right to be interviewed.

Saying she was “slightly cross-eyed and dizzy” after preparing all night for her “job interview,” Santiago said she was very much surprised to find out that her five rivals were no-shows.

Very surprised

“I stepped off the elevator and the media said ‘What was your reaction to the fact that you’re the only one present?’ I was very surprised. The JBC did not tell me what its decision is going to be. I was excused, they continued their deliberations,” she said.

Panganiban, who chairs the JBC, announced yesterday that the JBC had received individual letters from the five associate justices informing the body of their decision not to participate.

“The justices’ option not to appear is their prerogative. Their nominations will be decided on their known track record and decisions,” Panganiban said.

He said he accepted their decision, stressing that the JBC has no power to compel anybody to attend the public interview.

Smartly turned out in pearls and a black striped pantsuit, Santiago rued that her brief appearance at the SC “wasn’t worth the [cost of] dry-cleaning my suit.”

Personality defect

She figured her five rivals are “extremely shy and suffer from a personality defect, in which case no manager will hire them, don’t you agree?”

“I decided that it is in the best interest of fair play not to insist that I should be interviewed as well,” Santiago told Senate reporters.

“I feel that if I insist, it might place my colleagues at an unfair disadvantage. So in the spirit of collegiality I am canceling [the public interview],” she said.

A source close to the deliberations revealed the real story of the failed public interviews, which would have been the first time such interviews were conducted for nominees for the SC top post.

According to the source, who asked not to be named, Panganiban had asked Santiago not to continue with the public interview after the five justices declined to submit to it.

“He’s trying to protect the incumbent justices and to save face for the JBC,” the source said.

If Santiago had gone ahead and been interviewed, it was feared there would have been a public clamor to disqualify the justices who did not show up.

The source said Panganiban was against Santiago “because of his mentor, [former Senate President Jovito] Salonga” and to perpetuate the “tayo-tayo system” (old-boys club) which resists any attempt at an outsider being appointed.

The source said another JBC member also belonged to Salonga’s law office.

Salonga’s revenge?

“It is Salonga’s way of fighting President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because Santiago is perceived to be pro-Arroyo,” the source said.

Quisumbing, the second most senior magistrate in the court yesterday asked the President to appoint Puno as the latter was the most senior member of the high court.

He warned that members of the judiciary might become demoralized if the seniority rule is not followed. But he noted that it was the sole prerogative of the President to appoint the Chief Justice.

Quisumbing earlier said he would not be participating in the public interview because of a standby resolution in the Supreme Court that there is no need for sitting justices automatically nominated to undergo a public interview.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

29 November 2006
From Inq7.net

JBC SUSPENDS PUBLIC INTERVIEW

by Tetch Torres

THE JUDICIAL and Bar Council (JBC) has suspended the public interview of all the nominees for Chief Justice after none of the candidates from the Supreme Court showed up.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago was the only candidate who arrived for the interview Wednesday, but she also decided to forgo the process.

Senator Francis Pangilinan, a member of the JBC, said following the cancellation of the interview that the panel is faced with three possibilities -- to either declare a failure of the nomination process; urge the justices to reconsider their position and reschedule the public interview; or disqualify the justices and open the nomination process.

Pangilinan said the JBC would discuss the matter in its next meeting Monday.

At the same time, Pangilinan said he was “disappointed” over the non-appearance of the high court justices, namely Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno; and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing.

"I am disappointed. I do highly regard the magistrates. They may have reasons for not appearing but we don't agree with [these]," Pangilinan said.

Senator Santiago, the only nominee who appeared for the interview said she was “surprised by this development.”

“When I first received my invitation for a job interview, I responded affirmatively with alacrity out of an abiding sense of obedience and allegiance not only to the Supreme Court, to the JBC, but to the rule of law in our country,” Santiago said.

“As a former professor of Constitutional Law, I invoke the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” she said.

“Considering that my friendly rivals have decided to waive their privilege of a job interview that if I insist to be interviewed this afternoon, it might put my colleagues and competitors at an unfair disadvantage. If that is the case, then I am also willing to forgo the privilege out of a spirit of collegiality and fairness,” she said.

Meanwhile, civil society groups are apprehensive that the non-appearance of the candidates might create a bad precedent, giving other judges from other courts a reason to snub the JBC.

"The justices, say from the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan nominated for a presiding justice post might imitate them. These are also sitting justices, does it mean they are also exempted from being interviewed?" Alternative Law Group (ALG) Spokesman Marlon Manuel said.

ALG is part of a group of civil society organizations called the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW).

Manuel added that the non-appearance was also a big blow to outgoing Chief Justice and JBC Chairman Artemio Panganiban's efforts at enhancing the transparency of the appointments process and promoting judicial reform.

"We are very saddened that the justices themselves made the people feel that the rule of law did not apply to them," Manuel said.

“In a country adhering to the rule of law principle, every member of society, even the ruler, must follow the law,” said Manuel.

"Their non-appearance has clearly sent a message to the public: Some could stand above the law and are not answerable to the law. Isn’t it that when people could not follow the law, they are either punished or disqualified? We hope that the JBC could address this matter once and for all otherwise it won't anymore be effective in its mandate," he said.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

29 November 2006
From Inq7.net

JBC SUSPENDS PUBLIC INTERVIEW

by Tetch Torres

THE JUDICIAL and Bar Council (JBC) has suspended the public interview of all the nominees for Chief Justice after none of the candidates from the Supreme Court showed up.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago was the only candidate who arrived for the interview Wednesday, but she also decided to forgo the process.

Senator Francis Pangilinan, a member of the JBC, said following the cancellation of the interview that the panel is faced with three possibilities -- to either declare a failure of the nomination process; urge the justices to reconsider their position and reschedule the public interview; or disqualify the justices and open the nomination process.

Pangilinan said the JBC would discuss the matter in its next meeting Monday.

At the same time, Pangilinan said he was “disappointed” over the non-appearance of the high court justices, namely Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno; and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing.

"I am disappointed. I do highly regard the magistrates. They may have reasons for not appearing but we don't agree with [these]," Pangilinan said.

Senator Santiago, the only nominee who appeared for the interview said she was “surprised by this development.”

“When I first received my invitation for a job interview, I responded affirmatively with alacrity out of an abiding sense of obedience and allegiance not only to the Supreme Court, to the JBC, but to the rule of law in our country,” Santiago said.

“As a former professor of Constitutional Law, I invoke the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” she said.

“Considering that my friendly rivals have decided to waive their privilege of a job interview that if I insist to be interviewed this afternoon, it might put my colleagues and competitors at an unfair disadvantage. If that is the case, then I am also willing to forgo the privilege out of a spirit of collegiality and fairness,” she said.

Meanwhile, civil society groups are apprehensive that the non-appearance of the candidates might create a bad precedent, giving other judges from other courts a reason to snub the JBC.

"The justices, say from the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan nominated for a presiding justice post might imitate them. These are also sitting justices, does it mean they are also exempted from being interviewed?" Alternative Law Group (ALG) Spokesman Marlon Manuel said.

ALG is part of a group of civil society organizations called the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW).

Manuel added that the non-appearance was also a big blow to outgoing Chief Justice and JBC Chairman Artemio Panganiban's efforts at enhancing the transparency of the appointments process and promoting judicial reform.

"We are very saddened that the justices themselves made the people feel that the rule of law did not apply to them," Manuel said.

“In a country adhering to the rule of law principle, every member of society, even the ruler, must follow the law,” said Manuel.

"Their non-appearance has clearly sent a message to the public: Some could stand above the law and are not answerable to the law. Isn’t it that when people could not follow the law, they are either punished or disqualified? We hope that the JBC could address this matter once and for all otherwise it won't anymore be effective in its mandate," he said.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

From The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 22 November 2006

NOMINATION OF 4 BETS FOR CHEIF JUSTICE OPPOSED

By Juliet Labog-Javellana

The Judicial and Bar Council has received opposition to the nomination of four of the six candidates for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, according to Senate majority Leader Francis Pangilinan.

Pangilinan, ex-officio member of the JBC which screens nominations to the judiciary, said oppositors have submitted position papers against Associate Justices Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Leonardo Quisumbing and Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago so far.

The other two nominees are Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez and Antonio Carpio.

Pangilinan said the filing of opposition against the nominees was part of the screening process. The JBC is deliberating on the nominees, one of whom will be chosen by President Macapagal-Arroyo to succeed Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban who is set to retire on Dec. 7. The JBC is mandated to submit a short list of at least three names to the President.

Panganiban said the JBC met on Monday and tackled this proposal to conduct public interviews of the nominees to ensure greater transparency in the selection process.

He said the eight-member panel failed to agree on his proposal and is set to meet again tomorrow.

“I think the majority sentiment (in the JBC) is for public interviews but some of our collegues are looking at the position of the Supreme Court (against it),” Pangilinan said.

-o0o-

Breaking News

7 November 2006

MIRIAM WILL ASSUME CJ POST AFTER CHA-CHA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who has been nominated for Supreme Court Chief Justice, said that if recommended and appointed, she will assume office, only after the Supreme Court has decided the charter change issue.

“I don’t want to cause embarrassment to President Arroyo by participating in the court deliberations on the charter change issue, which will certainly be brought before the Supreme Court. If I vote in favor of charter change, that might provoke a storm of controversy because of my political association with the appointing power,” Santiago said.

The senator said she was unable to talk to President Arroyo at the meeting of the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) yesterday (Tuesday), for lack of time.

“The President went into overtime at another prior meeting and was about half an hour late opening the LEDAC meeting. So there was no chance for a talk before the meeting,” Santiago said.

The senator said that after President Arroyo momentarily left the room, Santiago, Sen. Flavier, and Sen. Pangilinan also left, to prepare for the afternoon Senate session.

“Although cha-cha was not on the LEDAC agenda, a spirited and lengthy debate ensued after the President called on Rep. Constantino Jaraula to report on the status of the Senate-House talks on cha-cha. It was evident that there are manifold and strongly held views among the President’s allies. In any event, my view is that this political issue will eventually morph into a judicial issue,” Santiago said.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, said she declined to participate in the LEDAC cha-cha debate, because the only agency worth persuading is the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.

“There was no sense in proselytizing among the converted,” Santiago said.

-o0o-

Breaking News

26 September 2006

MIRIAM: SC WILL VOID PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert, shocked administration stalwarts by predicting that the Supreme Court will declare “unconstitutional for lack of legal basis” the people’s initiative for charter change, which she called “dead on arrival.”

“Using the words of an old decision, the people’s initiative petition is a patent illegality which, when it rears its ugly head, should be slain on sight,” Santiago said.

The senator said that the present people’s initiative is illegal on three grounds: it defies judicial precedent; it is not limited to an amendment but constitutes a revision which is prohibited by the present charter; and it has no budgetary appropriation for the necessary plebiscite.

“The first fatal flaw of the people’s initiative is that it defies the Supreme Court ruling in the 1997 case of Defensor Santiago v. Comelec, where the Court required that there should first be a law passed by Congress providing for a people’s initiative on charter change,” said Santiago.

Congress until now has failed to act on the bill filed by Santiago, who won the 1997 case by personally arguing it in the Supreme Court.

To support her first argument, Santiago cited the legal principle stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means to adhere to judicial precedents, or prior decided cases.

“According to the doctrine of stare decisis, when the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases, where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties are the same. The facts are the same: there is still no law passed by Congress for a people’s initiative on charter change,” Santiago said.

The senator said that a split vote in the Supreme Court is not a ground for disturbing a precedent.

“Defensor Santiago v. Comelec is an authority or binding precedent in the Supreme Court, because the very point is again in controversy. The split voting is immaterial. This doctrine is grounded on the theory that security and certainty require that an accepted and established legal principle should be followed. The Supreme Court should not depart from precedent,” she said.

To support her second argument, Santiago said that the Constitution explicitly limits a people’s initiative to an amendment of the Constitution, which necessarily excludes the power to revise the charter.

“The present proposal of certain talkative administration stalwarts constitutes an entire revision and is not a mere amendment. It will replace our presidential with a parliamentary system. It will abolish the Senate and create a unicameral parliament. It will transfer executive powers from a nationally elected president to a prime minister elected by members of parliament. These measures together constitute a revision and not a mere amendment,” she said.

“The people’s initiative advocates are long on enthusiasm but short on law. They are also very economical with the legal truth,” she scoffed.

To support her third argument, Santiago said that the Constitution requires that even if the people’s initiative is upheld by the Supreme Court, there should still be a plebiscite, which has to be supported by a budgetary appropriation.

“Assuming that the plebiscite is held next year, then there should be an appropriation for it in the 2007 budget, which Congress is now debating. But there is no such provision, and the Senate will never approve it,” said Santiago, who is also vice-chair of the Senate finance committee.

Santiago said that after reading the “gushing, puerile, and unintelligent” press releases by people’s initiative advocates, she “could no longer hold my peace and started to boil over” and would have wanted to argue personally in the Supreme Court against the petition, but is prevented by illness.

The senator underwent endoscopy at the Philippine General Hospital last Monday, and is scheduled for a CAT scan this Friday, because of anorexia apparently caused by an ulcer.

Her staff said Santiago plans to attend Senate session on Monday next week.

-o0o-