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.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

5 October 2007

On Administrative Order 197

I have not yet received a copy (but) I can immediately notice that there is a constitutional issue involved. This administrative order might be on a collision course with the constitutional provision of the right of the public to know. It might be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on that grounds, so I am already worried as a constitutionalist.

I believe that it could be adequately covered by the doctrine of executive privilege which is already have been upheld by the Supreme Court in that case of Senate v. Ermita. There, the Supreme Court invalidated the Executive Order No. 464 but at the same time it said that the doctrine of executive privilege, which is not a constitutional provision, is applicable but under certain conditions. It even made a special mention of diplomatic secrets and military secrets. In those two cases, the doctrine of executive privilege is mostly applied by the Supreme Court, that is to say it takes the word of the president; but the Office of the President must give certain specific details to explain why it is a secret. It cannot just invoke executive privilege in a general way. It must give enough details without giving away the secret. The issue of constitutionality will hinge on how the administrative order is worded.

In the Senate v. Ermita case, the Supreme Court, in effect, invalidated the language employed by the executive order—it was just too broad, it was not properly invoked, etc. So again, this might be the observation of the court in the hypothetical case that someone brings a case to question the constitutionality of the administrative order; and definitely that would be the threshold issue for any Senate committee to its chairperson who wishes to probe into military activities. Automatically, there would be an invocation of this administrative order, and then at that point the Senate would invoke the Supreme Court decision again, as in the case of Senate v. Ermita.

On the Comelec budget

The Office of the President cut down the Comelec proposed budget by nearly half, from P 8B to only P 4B. Under the constitution, the Senate Finance Committee has no longer jurisdiction to increase its budget because there is a constitutional prohibition.

The important fact about the Comelec is that it spends more or less P 5B whenever national and local elections are held together. So that’s the cost to the Filipino. Every time there is an election in both the local and national levels, immediately that’s P 5B. The Comelec always asks for a budget in the billions for voter validation, but why do we have to spend P 1.5B just to clean up the voters’ list. We’ve been engaged in this project for maybe decades. Maybe we should look for an alternative option for voter validation at lesser cost but with equal effectivity because I don’t really see very much effect on election results as announced, there are always cries of electoral fraud, and one of these frauds are fake voters’ participation or falsification of election document. This is just too big an expense.

On the CHR budget

I gave them instructions, as a constitutionalist, that there should be equal protection between civilian victims and military victims since the public is under the impression that only civilian victims are protected by the commission. There has to be emphasis that the military and uniformed people are also entitled to the protection of the Commission on Human Rights. For example, if they are treated by the combatants against the government in a manner that would be violating the international law on conflicts or the international law on war.

On the ARMM budget

This area, the ARMM, includes five provinces which are always at the bottom of the ranking for social development and for economic development, and yet ARMM for the past many years has always had one of the biggest budgets in the General Appropriations Act. Its budget is far bigger than the budget of the entire Congress of the Philippines, bigger than that of the Office of the President, bigger than that of maybe a dozen executive departments, and yet it remains at the
bottom of the list. So where is all that money going? We would like to know.

Plus, for personal services, the general rule of thumb is that it cannot exceed thirty percent of the total budget. But for the ARMM, it is more than seventy percent! What are all these people doing? I think that they have to produce more results to justify such a huge huge budget.

[ARMM proposed budget for 2008: P8.614B; 2007: P8.292B; P8.292B]

Excerpts from Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview after the “Hello Garci” hearing

17 September 2007

On Doble as witness

As far as I am concerned, so far, Doble is an impeached witness. Ibig sabihin, wala siyang kredibilidad. The rule under the Rules of Court is he who alleges must prove. Kung meron kang iniistorya, ikaw ang dapat magpruweba, hindi ang kalaban. Kailangan niyang i-pruweba lahat ng sinasabi niya. Dahil wala ng ibang testigo, una maghanap na ng iba, baka si Arlene Doble, kung makikita. Pangalawa, ay ang to impeach him (Doble) by showing that he is generally a person who is untrustworthy or dishonest.

On the absence of the invited members of the executive branch in the hearing

Maling mali naman iyon. Nag-privilege speech na ako kung ano ang procedure. Una, sinabi ng Korte Suprema sa Senate v. Ermita, na hindi pwedeng i-invoke ang E.O. No. 464 dahil invalid iyan. Ini-invoke nila ngayon; bakit naman? Pangalawa, sabi, kung gusto ninyo, talagang may doktrina tayo ng executive privilege pero dapat i-invoke iyan ng Presidente sa pamamagitan ng Execuitive Secretary. The invocation if the doctrine of executive privilege should be expressed, not implicit. Ang mga excuse letters nila are not expressed invocations of executive privilege. At best they are only implied. That is not valid according to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court very categorically said that only the President through her Executive Secretary can invoke it. And she cannot just make a blanket invocation; she has to specify why is this classified as a state military secret. Pangalawa, they have to give certain facts or data to justify to justify the invocation. They cannot just make a vague, overbroad invocation.

Dapat i-contempt sila dahil nag-privilege speech na ako. Nagkasundo naman kaming mga senador na tama ang aking interpretasyon ng ating batas at ng desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema. Binigyan pa sila ng kopya. Pinapaliwanag na, ayaw pang tanggapin. Wala na kaming option. Dapat i-cite sila for contempt. Kung hindi, mawawalan ng respeto ang publiko para sa Senado.

I am very irritated about the excuses, which to me are very, very flimsy. Still I realize that as much as possible, we must avoid a direct confrontation between the Office of the President and the Senate.

 -o0o-