Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview - 13 April 2009

On the VFA

I have called for a hearing on the proposal which seems to be mounting to terminate the VFA. Under its own terms, the VFA can be terminated by either the Philippines or the US for any or no reason, and the termination will be effective after notice to the other party within six months. We don’t need a reason. The real reason is, I believe, that after ten years of operation in our country, the VFA is working more harm than good to the national interest. It is acting as a lightning rod for the enemies of the US , and we are being used as a monitoring station by the US Armed Forces in its so-called ‘war on terror’. According to President Obama there is no more ‘war on terror’ and therefore there is no need for the Americans to stay here.

On the part of the Philippines , what we got was used military equipment—in other words, American junk. I have read the papers this morning and I have discovered that the commitment to give us their used military equipment has been dangled before the Philippine government since the early 1950’s. So every time they want something from the Philippines , they will always offer the same deal. If we let them do something in our territory, they will give us their used military junk. I don’t think that it is consonant with the worldview of the new president, particularly since he has spent his childhood in Indonesia which is one of the closest and most analogous neighboring countries to ours. Therefore I think we should give President Arroyo more resources with which to face up with the US which tends to become arrogant every time it is able to get something out of the Philippines for nothing.

On charter change

In addition, I think the moment the House of Representatives passes the so-called charter change resolution, immediately I, and definitely certain other senators, will rush to the Senate to challenge the House resolution on a petition for certiorari, for example. It is their view that when the Constitution provides that a constituent assembly, composed of members of the Congress sits down to change the Charter, the legislative vote should be three-fourths of the votes of the senators sitting down with the House members—and therefore counted as an ordinary House member—that is for me a completely unacceptable view of our Constitution.

Under the doctrine of necessary implication, you read into the statute whatever is necessary in order to effectuate it. Our Constitution provides for a bicameral Congress, and therefore voting should always be bicameral. It can be held at the same time, but the House would vote among itself, and the Senate should vote among itself.

And even if we are outvoted, I believe that the Filipino voters will never approve in a plebiscite any charter change that has been passed only by the vote of the House counting the vote of the Senate together with itself. That will simply not be acceptable to the Filipino public because the Filipino voter is very jealous of his prerogative to cast a vote in favor of his president.

If we change to the parliamentary system, they will not personally vote for their prime minister, but instead surrender their vote for the prime minister and delegate it to the member of parliament of his district. The vote is the only time the voter asserts his authority in a flawed democracy like ours. Even in the case of the stupid corrupt voter, at least it gives him the opportunity to make money out of the politician that is stealing money anyway in the last three or six years. So they will never agree to the proposal to take away this power from themselves. That is the problem.

Of course there are many arguments in favor of a parliamentary system, but basically we have no background in this process because we were colonized by the Americans like other Southeast Asian country. Therefore, I feel that this will turn, like all great political questions, into a great judicial question. The issue is whether the Arroyo appointees will feel bound to vote in a partisan fashion just to support the president who appointed them to office. I don’t think so.

Is PGMA looking for a term extension?

I think she will want more to leave a good name for herself. As you know, she is faltering in the popularity surveys, and for her to be more than proactive in pushing for a shift to a parliamentary system might spell her doom. So she will have to take this in proper perspective. She will not only be fighting for her political life, but also her reputation in history.

Those congressmen are thinking that they can sell their votes to the highest bidder once they turn themselves into parliament. There will be a campaign among themselves on who will be elected prime minister. What will happen is that the ‘prime-ministerables’ will be trying to buy the rest of the members of parliament. How much will each candidate for prime minister will be willing to pay for each member of parliament? Every member of parliament will be for sale whether actually he or she is not. That is how every candidate for prime minister will view their colleague. The money used to be spent to buy the Filipino voter will now be concentrated on some three hundred people. You want to be a gazillionaire? Run for member of parliament.

Is there enough time for charter change?

No, definitely there is no more time left. Unless you run a gravy train. And I just don’t think that the Filipino is in the mood to go along the shenanigans of corrupt politicians. Why do we have to change right now? Why can’t we change it on, like, 2011 or some other period of time? Why do we have to do it right now? Are we sinking into the Pacific Ocean ? Are we gasping for breath? There is no defense on the question of necessity. Why now? Why so urgent?

Are the congressmen looking for a term extension?

A politician is always a hopeless optimist. He is always an apostle of hope. He is always hoping that things will turn out for the best. Even if they will say right now that there will be no term extensions, they are hoping that once the resolution is passed for charter change, things will somehow change and they can still remain in office. Otherwise they will not be members of the House. You have to be inconceivably optimistic to be a member of the House of Representatives.

On the status of the WB hearings

It was clear that there was no evidence as sanctioned by the Rules of Court. I think that those who won’t agree on how I conducted the proceedings are hoping that they can file the same resolution and have it assigned to another committee, otherwise engage in forum-shopping. At that point, I will put my foot down; I’m going to the Supreme Court and say you can’t do this. In the first place, the legislative committee of the Senate is not the NBI or the office of the fiscal. We are not supposed to be conducting preliminary investigations of criminal cases. We are conducting investigations in aid of legislation. And since the WB doesn’t even want to share any information with us, there is no modicum or scintilla of evidence on which to base any adverse statement against the First Gentleman.

Let the Supreme Court rule on whether if a minority of the Senate thinks that it did not get the political partisan results it was hoping for, it can go and refer the same subject matter to another committee so that they can get the result it wants in terms of political mileage. Are we allowed under the Constitution to do this? The Rules of the Senate provides that the Rules of Procedure will not be strictly followed during legislative investigations except when a substantive right of the accused is involved. A substantive right is any right protected and defined under the Constitution, and one of these substantive rights is the right to be presumed innocent.

Another committee can hold another investigation on another aspect, but you have to examine the process. If it simply results in placing the First Gentleman on the dock again, I will resent it as a lawyer.

I will file a committee report as soon as possible. I’ll simply say that there is no evidence pursuant to the Rules of Court, and my basis will be there is a substantive right involved, and under our own rules, we have to apply the strict procedural rules as provided by the Rules of Court.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago's Press Statements

On Tuesday’s Senate majority caucus

I just came from the caucus of the majority in the conference room of the Senate President. I have been assigned to make a statement to the media for the entire majority caucus. First, pursuant to my recommendation, the Senate economic affairs committee, of which I am chair, will no longer issue a subpoena to the country director of the World Bank. Instead, as he himself has suggested, we shall invite him through the secretary of finance to an informal technical briefing, to be attended not only by the members of the three committees handling the World Bank issue, but by all the senators, if that is the wish of our colleagues. Since he has requested for an informal setting, we presume that he means not the formal setting of a public hearing. Perhaps, he prefers an informal conference where he would explain to us the nature of the World Bank documents.

Second, pursuant also to my recommendation, the caucus of the majority today decided that we will not hold another public hearing, but merely an informal technical briefing. Finally, with respect to the rules of evidence, we shall apply the Senate Rules of Procedure, particularly the Rules Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. The Rules state in effect that as much as possible, technicalities shall be waived, except when substantive rights of an accused person are involved. The substantive rights of an accused person are those enumerated in our Constitution. The Senate will strictly follow the rules of evidence with respect to the substantive rights of an accused – for example, the presumption of innocence of an accused person, his right against self-incrimination, and his right to confront the witnesses against him.

If this is the case, my committee will be happy to limit itself to economic affairs, because, after all, that is the eponymous name of my committee. The committee is named economic affairs. After that, if there is a senator who wishes to pursue the criminal angle or the accountability of a public official or a public figure, then that senator should file a resolution and the Senate President will assign it to the proper committee, perhaps to the blue ribbon committee. In the meantime, the economic affairs committee and the two secondary committees will first finish this particular investigation on the economic angle of the World Bank case.

Were the results of the majority caucus a win-win situation?

Yes. If you remember, I filed an application for indefinite sick leave, because right now I am in very poor medical condition. I have, as one of the symptoms of my chronic fatigue syndrome, arrhythmia, which is irregular heartbeat, that and I am palpitating right now. That is why I am breathing like I just ran up several flights of stairs. Actually, I did not even want to hold committee hearings. But since the matter of the World Bank fell on my lap as chair of the proper committee, I did not want to be absent because that would have triggered a string of media stories and speculation about why I was absent and that I was just trying to avoid the controversy. That is why I am very happy about the result of the caucus. I was the one who suggested that I should finish the investigation of my committee, and thereafter, anyone can file a resolution if he feels that the economic affairs committee has sufficiently exhausted only the economic aspect of the issue and he wants to pursue the criminal aspect which would fall into the jurisdiction of another committee.

On the confidentiality of the World Bank documents

According to the procedure of the World Bank, we do not communicate directly with them. But they communicate only with whom they call the “accountable officers” of the government, the finance secretary, who is also a governor of the World Bank, and the ombudsman. So I will immediately write a letter to Finance Secretary Gary Teves and request him to arrange an informal technical meeting with the World Bank country director and the Senate as soon as possible.

In his letter to me yesterday, it appears that the World Bank country director, after hearing from the legal department in Washington DC, has made slight adjustments in their strict rules of confidentiality and immunity. The rule of confidentiality in the World Bank is that none of the documents could ever be used for any purpose and cannot even be distributed or cited in any document of our government. In other words, you cannot use the documents for any purpose whatsoever. In his letter to me yesterday, the country director at least gave an inch to the Senate by saying that since they have already given the reports to the two accountable officers of the Philippines, then they give the discretion to the two as to whether to share those reports with the Senate or with any other sector of our society.

I have the referral report, the notice of sanctions proceedings – which is actually an enumeration of all the witnesses and documents that came into the hands of the World Bank investigators, and the decision. The difference in viewpoint taken by the Senate and the World Bank is owing to the difference in our functions and objectives. The objective of the World Bank is simply to find out if there is some evidence if collusion has taken place, because their main objective is to prevent corruption in the bidding of World Bank-funded projects. In the case of the Senate, we are conducting an inquiry in aid of legislation. We have to find out what things are covered by the jurisdiction of the World Bank. That is why they initially do not want to release the documents because they might be misused or the World Bank might be manipulated into a certain position, which it is not taking at all, with respect to domestic politics.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago's Press Statements

World Bank Scandal

Political society and media are divided into pro-Gloria and anti-Gloria camps. I am an administration ally. This does not necessarily mean that I would place my judicial reputation at stake in order to unreasonably defend her husband.

I am now attacked by the anti-Gloria forces and their PR firms, simply because I am trying to enforce the Rules of Evidence. Gee, I must be effective. The Tagalog saying is: “People throw stones only at trees which bear fruits.”

My attitude is that, I am only collateral damage. I am amused by the sudden emergence of experts who are not even lawyers, all expressing opinions on the Rules of Evidence. They are like butchers inside the operating room, advising the surgeon on how to conduct brain surgery. My response to critics is: “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”

Committee Hearing on Smith Detention

This will be conducted on Thursday, February 17, by the Committee on Foreign Relations, which I chair. The committee will consult experts consisting of international law experts from the academe, and other fields. We have requested them to advice the committee on the steps that could be taken by the Philippine government to implement the Supreme Court decision that RP-US should immediately negotiate the transfer of Smith from the US embassy premises to Philippine jail premises.

WASHINGTON TO DECIDE WB REPORT RELEASE

World Bank Country Director Bert Hofman said that he has forwarded to the World Bank main office in Washington D.C. the letter from the Senate protesting and requesting reconsideration of his refusal to give a copy of the World Bank documents on the collusion scandal that implicates the First Gentleman and others.

This was contained in the letter dated February 9 sent by Hofman to Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the economic affairs committee, in reply to Santiago ’s letter of 6 February 2009.

“Your letter raises important considerations of national and international law with respect to availability of information in the context of the World Bank recent debarment of international and domestic firms on grounds of collusion,” Hofman said.

Hofman said he forwarded Santiago ’s letter to the Washington D.C. legal department, apparently to study the points of international law raised by Santiago , who was Philippine nominee to the International Court of Justice.

In his latest letter, Hofman promised Santiago that he will provide the Senate with a copy of the Redacted Report, which is being finalized by the World Bank Integrity Vice-Presidency, and will then be reviewed by the Philippine government.

The reviewing officer will apparently be executive director to the Philippines Jorge Humberto Botero.

Santiago told media that there are apparently four WB documents: Referral Report November 2007; Notice of sanctions proceedings May 2008; Decision of Sanctions Board 12 January 2009; and Redacted (Edited) Report, to be posted in the WB website.

“I strongly suggest that any person commenting on the World Bank scandal should specify which of these four WB documents he is referring to. This would avoid confusion in the public mind,” Santiago said.

In her prior letter to Hofman, Santiago cited the following points of international law to support the Senate request for a copy of the World Bank documents:

• International law is evolving away from the concept of absolute immunity.


• There is no Headquarters Agreement between the World Bank and the Philippine Government.


• In the landmark case of Liang vs. People, 355 SCRA 125 (2001), the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, but not its officials, enjoy absolute immunity.

MIRIAM SLAMS WORLD BANK, RESUMES PROBE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the economic affairs committee, called for a formal protest by the foreign affairs department, over the World Bank refusal to give the Senate a copy of its Referral Report on three blacklisted Filipino construction firms.

“I was being polite, and dutifully observed protocol by first requesting for waiver of WB confidentiality. All I got for my pains was a summary refusal. This is a gross manifestation of the antediluvian mentality that all developing states are beggars to be ignored at whim,” she said.

Santiago said that yesterday (February 6) she received a letter from WB Country Director Bert Hofman, stating that “the confidentiality of the so-called Referral Report, which was shared with the relevant authorities in the Philippines , should be respected and therefore the report cannot be shared with the Senate.”

“In effect, the WB is saying that the finance secretary and the Ombudsman are relevant authorities, but not the Senate. I educate those hoity-toity WB lawyers that in the Philippines , a public hearing is a constitutionally protected power of the Senate,” she said.

Santiago said that since the WB is on Philippine territory, it is governed by our Constitution.

“Under international law, WB has to take our legal system as it finds it. If not, we can evict them,” she said.

Santiago said that under international comity or courtesy, the WB legal department should at least have explained to her the legal basis for the refusal, instead of brushing away her request with just one sentence.

Santiago said that by comparison, even the UN Secretary General has the duty to waive immunity under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN.

“Even the UN Secretary General has the duty, repeat, the duty, to waive immunity, when he believes that immunity would impede the cause of justice, and can be waived without prejudice to the interest of the UN,” she said.

Santiago said that out of courtesy to the Senate, Hofman should at least have directed the legal department to submit a legal memorandum to the Senate.

“Mr. Hofman is impeding a Senate inquiry in aid of legislation. It is insensitive for the WB to fail to explain why giving the Senate a copy of the Referral Report would prejudice the WB,” she said.

Santiago , who is also chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said that the WB does not have a Headquarters Agreement with the Philippines .

“No Headquarters Agreement, no immunity, no confidentiality. The provisions of the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies are obsolescent at best and obsolete at worse,” she said.

In her reply sent yesterday, February 6, immediately after receiving Hofman’s letter, Santiago virtually lectured the country director, pointing out that under international law, the immunity principle has evolved from an absolute rule to a relative rule. (See enclosed Santiago letter).

“In the final analysis, it is the Philippine Supreme Court which has power to decide whether there are compelling reasons to rebut the presumption of confidentiality made by the World Bank. It is only a presumption, and this is the right time to test this in a Philippine court. It is arrogance like this which gives rise to the spreading call of the international community to revamp the UN system because it is skewed in favor of rich states. They may be richer, but there are more poorer states,” she said.

Santiago also set the resumption of the hearing on the World Bank scandal for Thursday, 12 February.

The economic affairs committee has sent out invitations to certain Filipino public figures mentioned in news report alleging that they were implicated in World Bank documents, namely: First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, former Rep. Prospero Pichay, former Rep. Jerome Paras, former DPWH Sec. Florante Soriquez, DPWH Boy Belleza, Project Director Lope Adriano, and DPWH Asst. Director Tito Miranda.

The Committee also issued subpoena duces tecum (order to bring the WB Referral Report) to: Finance Secretary Margarito Teves and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

MIRIAM SEEKS WB PROBE PAPERS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the economic affairs committee, wrote a letter “respectfully requesting” World Bank country director Bert Hofman to give to her committee the documents issued during the probe that led to the blacklisting of three Filipino firms.

Santiago was responding to an online news item alleging that a Japanese contractor, who has since left the country, allegedly linked First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo to the alleged collusion among the three firms.

“The internet news item is hearsay and therefore has no probative value,” said Santiago , a former RTC judge.

Santiago said that she has a copy of the World Bank final report, and that it does not mention the alleged testimony against the First Gentleman.

“In my letter to World Bank Director Hofman, I acknowledged that no Philippine government agency can subpoena the officials or the documents of the Bank. So I appealed to him, in the interest of Philippine public service and our anticorruption campaign, to voluntarily release the documents to the committee,” Santiago said.

The senator said that as much as possible, congressional hearings should abide by the Rules of Court.

“The Rules of Court prohibiting hearsay are mandatory in judicial courts. If a Senate committee endorses to the Ombudsman or to the prosecutors a criminal case based only on hearsay evidence, it will be thrown out,” she said.

Santiago said that under the hearsay rule, a witness can testify only to what he has perceived by his own senses.

“If the World Bank gives me the documents that incriminate the First Gentleman or any other public official, I will immediately set a hearing and invite them. If they don’t appear, I’ll take it a step farther and subpoena them,” 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.