Transcript of Interview - 29 September 2009

On the recent incident of a landmine explosion in Sulu resulting to the death of both US and Filipino troops

Why are they there? American troops should stay out of conflict areas. The problem is they go to combat or conflict areas.

What is its impact on the VFA resolution?

It confirms the suspicion of the university students and the leftists that these Americans are all actually engaging in warfare. War or battle is no longer defined today in armed forces manuals as actual shooting between two persons. War now includes unconventional warfare; so that is the basis of the contention that they are engaging, if not in shooting wars, at least in unconventional warfare.

For me, this constitutes additional evidence that they are already engaged in activities that have not been contemplated by the VFA at all.

What if the US troops retaliate?

They would have to start a war against the Philippines first. We will find ourselves in a state of war with the United States if we do that.

Are you concerned of the implications of the incident?

Yes. I already raised that in my sponsorship speech when I was sponsoring the VFA resolution. How come there are dead Americans in combat areas if it is true that they are not engaged in combat? And we have this suspicion that all these deaths are not necessarily reported in the media because it is kept as a secret.

Why were there in an area where there are landmines? We will necessarily define that area therefore as a conflict area at the very least.

But what can you say about the US troops’ involvement in the rescue operations for the victims of Typhoon Ondoy?

As I’ve said we welcome this. No one in his right mind would reject this offer of humanitarian assistance. But I humbly contend that this is all part of their psy-ops (psychological operations). They gather intelligence by this means. So it is not always a one-way street. We may be benefiting as a people, but they are benefiting as well.

Wouldn’t the incident drag the US troops into the conflict?

They already were when they insisted on the VFA. You must remember that when the Philippine government became party to the VFA, the United States kept on telling that it would stop military aid and other forms of economic and financial aid if we did not sign the VFA.

Their purpose was not to train Filipinos. Their purpose is to serve their own national agenda which is perfectly natural in international relations. There are those of us who are against the VFA now because after ten years we did not receive what we were hoping we would get in terms of military assistance.

On the US Embassy’s statement that the US troops were there because they were building schools in this particular incident

…And the Filipinos are so stupid as to plant landmines in area for a school where most of their children would go?

On the status of the VFA resolution

Immediately after the Senate approved it, I amended the resolution as suggested by one senator, and sent unofficial copies to the offices concerned like the DFA, the Malacañang VFA Commission, and the US Ambassador.

RENEGOTIATE OR TERMINATE THE VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT

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

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:

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

Constitution Bans Foreign Military Presence

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

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

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

2009 Supreme Court Case: Doctrinal Confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VFA Void for Vagueness

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

a. No Definition of “Visit”

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

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

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

b. No Definition of “Temporary”

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. No Definition of “Activities”

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

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

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

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

Strategy of Forward Operating Bases

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Task Force Engages in Combat

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Mutual Defense Treaty Irrelevant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits Are Illusory

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

1. Israel - $ 9 B


2. Egypt - $ 6 B


3. Pakistan - $ 4.6 B


4. Jordan - $ 2.6 B


5. Afghanistan - $ 2.6 B


6. Colombia - $ 2 B


7. Turkey - $ 1 B


8. Peru - $445.8 M


9. Bolivia - $320.6 M


10. Poland - $313 M

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 International Herald Tribune, 4 August 1998.

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

9 Ellen Tordesillas, June 2009 online.

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

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 CONDEMNS NORTH KOREA NUCLEAR TESTING

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations, joined world leaders in condemning the nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea earlier today, 25 May 2009.

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency earlier reported that North Korea “successfully conducted one more underground nuclear test on May 25 as part of the measures to bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense in every way as requested by its scientists and technicians.”

The nuclear test was reportedly “safely conducted on a new higher level in terms of its explosive power and technology of its control.”

Santiago said the nuclear testing was a breach of United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1718, which prohibited North Korea from conducting nuclear tests.

The senator urged Malacañang to support Japan’s call for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in the wake of the nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea.

Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific stock markets dipped today, spooked by the nuclear testing.

South Korean and Japanese stocks dropped after North Korea said it had conducted a nuclear test. New Zealand shares fell in sympathy with the Asian markets.

Santiago said the government should calm the Philippine stock market to prevent it from being jittery just like other Asian markets.

“There is no cause for panic. North Korea cannot immediately produce a nuclear weapon at this early stage of the testing,” Santiago said. “It will take years before North Korea can weaponize its nuclear capability.”

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.

SENATE POISED TO SCRAP VFA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the legislative oversight committee on the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (Lovfa), set for hearing next week a proposed Senate resolution calling for the unilateral termination of the VFA.

“The VFA is now ten years old. Under President Estrada, it was an outright deal. The RP got used military equipment, and the US had the right to snoop around Mindanao , as part of the war on terror of President Bush. We got the equipment, and they snooped for ten years. End of the deal,” she said.

Santiago said that the 1999 Senate Resolution 18 categorically stressed that the Philippine Constitution prohibits the permanent stationing of foreign troops on Philippine soil, and it is the Senate duty to prevent the VFA from turning into a permanent arrangement.

“Resolution 18 specified that the VFA envisioned only temporary visits of US personnel engaged in joint military exercises or other activities approved by the RP government. Beyond 10 years, the VFA will become a permanent visit,” she said.

Santiago said that recently the US defense department sent an email declaring that the phrase “war on terror” would now be replaced by the phrase “overseas contingency operation.”

“The Obama administration has stopped using the phrase ‘war on terror,’ which is the explanation for the presence of US soldiers in Mindanao . Since there is no more war on terror, then there is no more rationale for US troops to be stationed in Mindanao ,” she said.

Santiago quoted the VFA as stating that the Philippine government reserves the right to terminate unilaterally the VFA, once it no longer redounds to Philippine national interest.

“My main objection to the VFA at this time is that it continues to foster an attitude of dependency on our part, and an attitude of arrogance on the part of the US ,” she said.

Santiago said that she has several reservations on the February 2009 Supreme Court decision in Nicolas v. Romulo, which affirmed the prior decision in Bayan v. Executive Secretary, upholding the validity of the VFA.

“The authoritative force of the Nicolas case is weak, because it was promulgated by a divided court. Four justices dissented, while two justices did not take part,” she said.

Santiago said that the Supreme Court majority failed to duly consider the constitutional provision that the VFA should be “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.”

“Under the US Case–Zablocki Act, the VFA was submitted to the US Congress, because it is not characterized as a treaty. Under American law, any international agreement which is not a treaty has to be submitted to the Congress after it has entered into force with respect to the US . The US government does not recognize the VFA as a treaty, and therefore there is no compliance with the RP Constitution,” she said.

Santiago said that under the US Constitution, a treaty is an agreement of the US President made “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“In the US , since the VFA is not a treaty, it is not self-executing. It cannot be considered enforceable without an enabling law and it would not be recognized by US courts,” she said.

Santiago said that the majority rule was wrong in citing the 2008 US Supreme Court decision in Medellin v. Texas.

“Medellin dealt with agreements that are considered as treaties. The VFA, under US law, is merely an executive agreement,” she said.

Santiago scheduled the Lovfa hearing on Thursday, April 23, at 10:00 a.m.

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.

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: HOUSE BASELINES BILL “FATALLY FLAWED”

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said that the House version of the baselines bill is “fatally flawed” and “a potential diplomatic disaster.”

Santiago criticized the House version which includes the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal inside the Philippine archipelagic baselines, “because it violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).”

By contrast, the Senate version which Santiago sponsored claims the two, but places both, under the “regime of islands” principle, which is allowed by the Unclos.

Under Unclos, an archipelago is allowed to draw straight baselines from the outermost points of the outermost islands, provided that the baselines adhere to the natural configuration of the archipelago.

Santiago also said that it is “futile” to include the Spratlys inside the archipelagic baseline, because many of the Spratly islands are already occupied by several Southeast Asian countries and China .

“It defies reality when a state claims sovereignty over islands which are in the physical possession of other states,” she said.

Santiago , who is suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, declined to head the Senate panel to the bicameral conference committee, and instead endorsed Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to head the panel.

“Since the House panel will be headed by no less than the Speaker, it is only appropriate that the Senate panel should be headed by the Senate President,” she said.

Santiago said that she had the “fullest confidence in the analytical judgments” of both Speaker Nograles and Senate President Enrile.

“It is really a very simple choice. We have to scale down without surrendering our territorial claims. The unacceptable choice is to claim as much territory as we want, alienate the rest of the international community, and operate as a pariah in international law,” she said.

Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview

21 January 2009

On the government’s economic stimulus package

What this means is that government is going to spend P330 billion creating jobs so that more money would go to the people and will circulate in the economy, and in that way we can offset the expected adverse consequences of the recession in America .

Most governments in the world are making these stimulus packages, so there is nothing unusual, much less anomalous, about it. However, the devil is in the details. We have 330 billion to spend. That should be spent in improving agricultural productivity. If we are going to spend money anyway, let’s make sure we’ll have economic security, that is to say that we will not be at the mercy of rice exporters or fish exporters when the crunch comes.

As chair of the committee on economic affairs, I prefer that the 330 billion economic stimulus money should be spent on agricultural productivity, namely on such infrastructure projects such as the building of small-scale irrigation systems or of farm-to-market roads—more or less permanent improvements that can be availed of by the people.

I am definitely against spending any part of the 330 billion to create artificial jobs, for example sweeping streets or buying overpriced uniforms or brooms. This is a very fertile source of graft. There is already a red light flashing on and off. I read that the Metro Manila Development Authority chair has already started hiring more street sweepers. That is the worst kind of economic stimulus you can think of. He is going to use that for electioneering. And I warn that person that if these uniforms are going to be pink and blue, I am going to send him to jail personally.

It may not be enough. Of course it is never enough. You see, what happens is because the United States has less money than it used to have, it is no longer importing as much as it used to be from the Philippines . Of course our exporters are hurting; some are gone outright, some of them have made massive layoffs. So more Filipinos will be losing jobs. If that is the case, there will be money circulating in the economy, and with that everything will rise, oil prices will rise. That is why it becomes necessary for an economist like President Arroyo to adopt a stimulus package to stimulate the economy. First of all you have to release more money.

On US President Obama's inaugural speech

We have all seen this spectacle. It is always spectacular. The Americans want to impress people all over the world that they are the source of the rule of law and of democracy. I doubt it very much, but that is their self-propaganda which they fervently believe.

We simply have to wait and see. I hope that President Obama will not be as hostile to international law as President Bush was. President Bush was a swaggering cowboy. I do not know if he had any academic qualifications for the post because he can’t seem to understand international law. The United States cannot act unilaterally unless it has the support of a Security Council resolution. It cannot be the policeman of the world.

By contrast, President Obama has already announced that he has a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq . That is a good sign because Iraq is the Vietnam of our days. That is going to be a deep hole that the Americans has dug for themselves, and unless President Obama seizes the initiative, they might stay in that hole for a long time.

On the composition of the ethics committee

You can’t evade the issue of the 2010 elections. The Filipino people is very fond of self-flagellation because they celebrate presidential elections as if they have anything to look forward to, and then after only six months they begin to make a death wish for the elected president. That is so Filipino.

If those presidentiables (in the ethics committee) were more sensitive to the normal issue that would arise, that is to say the conflict of interest issue, they would have declined membership. But as it is, they have accepted it; that is their responsibility. However, it will become slightly difficult to justify an adverse opinion against Sen. Villar considering that they would be contesting the same seat in 2010. In that situation, you will never be able to evade public accusations on the partiality of the judgment.

Can the ethics committee continue with the hearings without the minority?

There is no rule in our Senate Rules that compels the minority to attend, and therefore we simply considered, and since they did it out of their own volition spontaneously, they have therefore waived any right. In the voting, they would be considered at the very least to have abstained. So we will go by the rule of the majority, at least those who participated.

On the Cabinet reshuffle

My response here is ‘Why am I not thrilled?”. It is unusual because she is at the end of her term and now she wants a new team. That means that the old team is not working—that is logic. So why is it not working? She should have done that for the earlier part of her term. It speaks of troubled waters. They can’t get along with each other there; that is always the case in Malacañang. Because it is the nerve center they can’t get along with each other, they are always fighting little turf wars. And this is how she decides it. The poor president of our country who is already besieged with the massive effort to lift our economy from an impending morass because of the economic recession in America can’t be bothered with these details. This is the way she calms the waters.

On FVR’s letter praying for Sen. Santiago’s health

Don’t you know that God is very conscious about the source of the prayer? If it comes from a polluted source, God would be very upset. So he should stop praying for me.

MIRIAM WANTS RP IN ICC

 Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today filed a resolution urging President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for ratification proceedings. 

Santiago said that the change in US leadership will likely pave the way for US ratification of the Rome Statute. 

Like the US , the Philippines has yet to ratify the Rome Statute. Malacañang still has to transmit the treaty to the Senate for ratification even though the Philippines has been a signatory of the treaty since 28 December 2002. 

Under the Constitution, before the Rome Statute can be valid and effective in the Philippines , it is necessary that the Statute be concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. 

“Though the US , under the Bush administration, did not ratify the Rome Statute, President-elect Barack Obama’s statements on the International Criminal Court (ICC) suggests that he is open to working closely with the Court,” Santiago said. 

Mr. Obama has acknowledged in media interviews that the ICC has “pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systematic crimes and it is in America ’s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur , are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation.” 

The Rome Statute provides for the establishment of the ICC, which exercises jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. 

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary that neither the Senate nor the Supreme Court can compel the President to transmit the signed text of the Rome Statute to the Senate. The President has sole discretion in initiating the ratification proceedings of a treaty.  

MIRIAM’S PLOY TO GET DELA PAZ

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that she has agreed with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, chair of the Blue Ribbon Committee, for their two committees to hold a joint hearing on the “Euro generals” case. 

  Former PNP comptroller Eliseo Dela Paz, thru counsel, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the jurisdiction of the foreign relations committee. 

  Though issued a subpoena, Dela Paz failed to appear at the hearing last October 23, and argued that jurisdiction does not belong to the foreign affairs committee, but to another committee where he would be willing to testify. 

  After overruling the challenge to the jurisdiction of her committee, Santiago issued an arrest warrant against Dela Paz. 

  Senate Pres. Manny Villar has signed the arrest warrant, which so far has been signed by eight senators. 

  According to Villar, at least 10 members of the foreign relations committee should sign the arrest warrant. 

  “To avoid all these technicalities, it would be better if the two committees hold a joint hearing, so that Dela Paz can no longer make a pretense of challenging jurisdiction on the arrest warrant,” Santiago said. 

  She said that if the Senate schedules the Bolante hearing this week, then the Dela Paz hearing will be held next week.  

WITHOUT MIRIAM, ICJ HAS NO WOMAN JUDGE

By a hairsbreadth, feisty Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, missed election as judge of the International Court of Justice, after winning in the popular General Assembly, but losing in the elite Security Council. 

  Her narrow and colorful defeat makes the 15-member ICJ and all-male enclave, despite repeated UN advocacy of gender balance. 

“It was a hard campaign, but ultimately it was a power game. The developed states tend to vote for countries where they have interests to protect, such as foreign investments, use of natural resources, and a big export market. As a developing state, we have no such cards to play,” Santiago said, after arriving Friday midnight from the UN New York. 

  The Philippine delegation led by Foreign Affairs Sec. Alberto Romulo and UN Amb. Hilario Davide put up such a brave battle that after the first round of voting, after four judges had already been elected, Santiago ’s votes compelled the voting to reach four rounds. 

  “Big countries like China and France refused to support the Philippines while small countries like Indonesia and Vietnam remained staunch Philippine allies up to the end. Probably none of the Big Powers voted for the Philippines ,” Santiago said. 

  The Big Powers, who are the five permanent members of the Security Council, are US, UK , France , Moscow , and China . 

  “Reportedly, the US considers the Philippines negligible in world affairs. UK and France prefer to support former colonies, where they have big investments. China has big investments to protect in Jordan . Moscow is sore at the Philippines , because we did not vote for it in the last Security Council elections. All this is realpolitik,” Santiago said. 

  Santiago , a former UP international law professor, said realpolitik is politics based on the national interest and on power, in other words, practical politics. 

  “The United Nations keeps advocating gender balance but now in the ICJ there are 15 judges without a single woman judge. This shows that the UN does not advance international interest, as much as the national interests of powerful countries,” Santiago said. 

  Santiago , who is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that her recent practical lesson in realpolitik has colored her perception of treaties between the Philippines and certain developed states. 

  “Powerful states promote international law only when it works in their favor. For example, they advocate gender balance on paper, but reject it when it hinders their own national interests,” she said. 

  Santiago noted that while in the General Assembly some 143 states promised in writing to vote for the Philippines , she got only 107 votes, still the required majority, but showing that some states cannot be trusted to keep their promises. 

  “In the same manner, the Philippine mission received nine written promises to vote for the Philippines in the Security Council, but only five voted for me. Fortunately, I was already warned that UN diplomacy can be accompanied by betrayal, because of the practice of secret balloting,” she said. 

  Santiago said that if the Philippines plans to nominate another candidate for the ICJ three years from now, the government should already start the process of mutual exchange of favors at this time. 

  “One strategy is that each time a country approaches the Philippines for a favor, immediately our government should ask for a commitment to the ICJ or any other international organization. Another strategy is to strengthen solidarity among the 10 Asean member states so that we shall form a united power bloc. But the best way is to work at increasing Philippine power in international terms,” she said.

MIRIAM: US POLLS TO IMPACT VFA, WORLD CRIMINAL COURT

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign affairs committee, said that the upcoming US presidential elections will likely result in US policy changes on the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the ratification of the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Santiago said that if Barak Obama is elected, it is likely he will take a more pro-Filipino position on the issue concerning the presence of US soldiers in the Philippines under the RP-US VFA.

“Obama grew up in Indonesia , and has been presumably inculcated with the Asian desire for full sovereignty in his nation’s territory, unhampered by any controversial presence of visiting forces,” the senator explained.

Santiago is also pushing for Senate concurrence on the Rome Statute creating the ICC. Under the Constitution, a treaty or international agreement must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate to be binding on the Philippines .

The ICC is an independent and permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

The Bush administration has refused to ratify the Rome Statute on the ground that it is harmful to US national interests and “legitimate activities” of the US military abroad.

Santiago believes that a change in US leadership will likely pave the way for US ratification of the Rome Statute.

“Even under the Bush administration, the US seems to be rethinking its policy to favor the Rome Statue because of the situation in Sudan ,” Santiago said.

The US government under Bush has acknowledged that the ICC may be the only effective tool for bringing accountability for the atrocities in Darfur .

Santiago also noted that since 2003, the Bush administration has issued no statement against the Rome Statute.

Like the US , the Philippines has yet to ratify the Rome Statute. Malacañang still has to transmit the treaty to the Senate for ratification even though the Philippines has been a signatory of the treaty since 28 December 2005.

Santiago today filed Senate Resolution No. 710 urging President Arroyo to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for ratification proceedings.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary that neither the Senate nor the Supreme Court can compel the President to transmit the signed text of the Rome Statute to the Senate. The President has sole discretion in initiating the ratification proceedings of a treaty.

MIRIAM SUMMONS “300 SPARTANS” FOR ASEAN CHARTER CONCURRENCE

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, urged her colleagues yesterday to concur with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Charter.

“Just like the 300 Spartans of King Leonidas who battled thousands of Persians in 480 BC, ASEAN could similarly form a phalanx vis-a-vis the rampaging onslaught of the dark side of globalization, and reap the dividends from it—freedom, peace, stability, and economic progress,” Santiago said in her speech in the Senate.

According to Santiago , the Philippines will benefit from ASEAN Charter’s concurrence because the Charter encourages increased trade and investment and binds ASEAN states to implement all ASEAN decisions and agreements in a timely manner.

“This means agreements such as the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers and its subsequent agreements would have to be enforced,” she said.

The Charter also creates the ASEAN Human Rights Body that seeks to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in the region, and aims to contribute to the world a regional perspective on human rights.

Santiago also emphasized the benefits of the ASEAN Charter in the maintenance of peace and order, and the promotion of democracy, good governance, and the rule of law in the region. As the ASEAN Charter streamlines its organizational structure, it maintains the inter-governmental nature of cooperation among its members and provides for a more systematic in the settlement of disputes between its members.

“The ASEAN needs to transform itself from a loosely-organized regional body into a more rules-based grouping with a legal personality of its own,” she said.

MIRIAM SPONSORS THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, delivered a sponsorship speech supporting the resolutions amending three bilateral Double Taxation Agreements (DTA) between the Philippines and Japan , New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates .

“The DTAs will be beneficial for the Philippines because it will encourage the flow of foreign investments capital and facilitate the flow of information between our tax authorities and theirs to enable them to better prevent tax evasion,” Santiago said.

In her speech, Santiago said that the amendments on the treaties reflect current tax policies and favor a balance of taxation rights between the Philippines and the other three contracting states.

In the Philippines , double taxation treaties serve to 1) lessen the burden of overseas Filipino workers or overseas Filipino investors residing and/or doing business in another country; and 2) to attract foreign investments to the country by giving tax incentives to the investors of other nationalities.

Aside from preventing double taxation and tax evasion, the bilateral tax treaties aim to

• eliminate discrimination against foreign nationals and non-residents;
  
• open direct communication channels between the two tax administrations;
  
• provide venue for information exchange for contracting states;
  
• set up mechanism for resolving disputes arising from the interaction of tax systems; and
  
• increase the certainty regarding contracting states’ domestic laws for better mutual investments and trade.
  

JPEPA SIDE ACCORD OK’D

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, released the exchange of notes between foreign affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and Japanese foreign affairs Minister Masahiko Koumoura concluded last week.

“In international law, an exchange of notes constitutes a treaty, binding on the parties and implying performance in good faith. This exchange of notes will in effect constitute an integral part of the treaty,” she said.

Santiago said that every senator has been given a copy of the exchange of notes on Philippine constitutional provisions, in order that the senators could take the exchange into due consideration when they vote on the Jpepa.

“The exchange means that areas of investment activities reserved by the Constitution to Filipinos will remain reserved, and will not be opened to Japanese investors,” she said.

Santiago said the exchange confirms that Jpepa will not result in a violation or amendment of any nationalistic provision, notably “the ownership of lands of public domain and exploration, development, and utilization of all waters, minerals, coal, petroleum oils, all sources of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources.”

Santiago said Jpepa will respect the reservation to Filipinos only of all “preferential rights, privileges, and concessions granted to qualified Filipinos covering the national economy and patrimony.”

“For example, the Japanese cannot lease or own alienable public lands. Neither can they own and transfer private lands,” she said.

Santiago said that the exchange of notes prohibits the Japanese from operating any public utility, practicing any profession, or owning mass media or advertising corporations.

Other fields that the Constitution reserves exclusively to Filipinos concern health and educational institutions.

Jpepa will not amend any existing law protecting Filipinos from unfair foreign competition, regulating foreign investments, promoting preferential use of Filipino labor and domestic materials, or regulating the transfer of technology.

Santiago also said that the exchange of notes emphasizes the Jpepa provision that the treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties, in order to allow for future Philippine laws that might not conform to Jpepa, but are intended to enforce the nationalistic constitutional provisions.

“This exchange of notes is of course considered binding between the Philippines and Japan , and will be respected as an integral part of Jpepa,” she said.

Santiago said that under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an exchange of notes is binding, when it is established that the states agreed that the exchange should have that effect.

“Thus, the constitutional issues raised by the treaty have now been resolved,” she said.

In the Senate, Jpepa is at present undergoing the process of interpellation on trade issues, handled by Sen. Mar Roxas.

After the trade issues are discussed, interpellation will proceed on the constitutional and legal issues, to be handled by Sen. Santiago.

After the period of interpellation is closed, three days later, voting on the treaty will be held.

The Constitution requires concurrence by two-thirds vote of the Senate, for the treaty to be considered ratified.

-End-

PALACE-SENATE ACCORD ON TREATIES

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has agreed in principle that henceforth, all negotiating panel for treaties like the controversial MOA-AD should include at least one member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that the accord was reached, when she and President Arroyo discussed the constitutional issues arising from the MOA-AD and the Jpepa.

“President Arroyo accepts that since the Senate has to concur with her ratification, the Senate should play an active role in treaty negotiations, at least with respect to constitutional and other issues,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that at a meeting in Malacañang last Friday, August 29, President Arroyo said she had issued instructions that the MOA-AD shall not be signed at all.

“That will preempt the declared intent of some Christian and Ilaga leaders in Muslim Mindanao to arm themselves, in anticipation of Muslim marauders in their communities,” the senator said.

Santiago said that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, care should have been taken in drafting the MOA.

“If signed, the MOA would become part of the preparatory documents that constitute the context of any treaty. As part of the context, it is considered as a guide to the interpretation of the treaty itself. Thus, it is significant,” she said.

Santiago said the mere terminology used – “Memorandum of Agreement” – was already unfortunate.

“The title of the document should have been more neutral. Since it was so unequivocal, it immediately raised a furor,” she said.

The Senate said that even if the MOA is characterized as a political question, the Supreme Court would still have the power to acquire jurisdiction, if it can be shown that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of executive officials.

“In the United States, it has been a long-standing practice to invite senators belonging to the Senate foreign relations committee to join the negotiating panel, so that the senators can anticipate what problems the treaty might raise in the Senate. Thus, verbal booby traps can be avoided,” she said.

-End-

Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview

After the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations hearing on the ASEAN Charter

The Committee on foreign affairs has decided to circulate a committee report for signature by the members recommending Senate concurrence for the ratification of the ASEAN Charter. Today, we heard several criticisms mostly based on the fact that Burma has not released Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and therefore any ASEAN Charter should contain provisions that are stronger than what are contained in it at present. At present, there is a human rights body but the charter confines itself to its creation and its provision than its terms of reference, that means its implementing rules and regulations shall follow. At this point, there is no clear definition on what the human rights body is authorized to do. This human rights body was the initiative of the Philippines and therefore, on the part of the Philippines, there could be no accusation that the charter will be a paper tiger because the Philippines fought very bravely to include this provision in the charter. It is incumbent now on these ASEAN members to establish this human rights body and go after the Myanmar issue.

The second is related to the first. The main objection was why does the ASEAN Charter enshrine the policy of non-intervention in internal affairs? That’s a very simple question to answer. The UN charter began when it was formally submitted with a clause concerning domestic jurisdiction, in effect, the provision of non-intervention in the proposed ASEAN Charter is simply an echo of that provision in the UN charter. Non-intervention is a logical outcome of state sovereignty. No state will allow in any document to which it is a party to, to allow any certain foreign entity to interfere with how it runs its own government.

Basically, the objections are in the nature of idealism versus reality. We wish it were a more perfect document, but because of the variated cultures of our region, it is very difficult to get a consensus on a document that will govern with legal force the affairs of these member governments. That’s the best we could do at this moment.

Ambassador Rosario Manalo of the ASEAN Charter Task Force: The ASEAN Charter provides the Association with a legal basis--a legal personality--which means that one, we can sue and be sued if it is internationally recognized, and secondly, that state parties will have the obligation to comply with whatever agreements or decisions are taken.

We think that this is a move forward from the loose association into this rules-based organization. The purpose of the Charter is to have the organization set up an ASEAN community which will be more effective in addressing the challenges and the risks confronting the region and the globalized world.

The Charter by itself is just a framework. It is envisioned that there will be subsequent protocols to flesh out the provisions of the charter. It is not an all-cure for certain, but it is certainly a base to build and strengthen further the region of the member states of Southeast Asia.

Commissioner Quisimbing of the Commission on Human Rights on why the Philippines supports the charter: The CHR welcomes the hearing on the Committee on Foreign Relations as well as your just announced intent to recommend the ratification to the committee members.

The criticism of the charter is that it sets up an ASEAN human rights mechanism but is vague on what its powers are going to be and what its mandate is going to be. However, this is the first time in history that an ASEAN body is even thinking of having a human rights body. Asia is the only region in the world that does not have a human rights body. We see this as a very important step and welcome the fact that the Philippines is the one that championed putting this into the charter and convinced countries like Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam, which are less democratic, to even let it be put in this important charter for ASEAN. We do not expect that something as specific as the power of who will be members of an ASEAN mechanism, will be put in this. We can look at the Charter as a constitution, and as Ambassador Manalo said, the details of such a mechanism can be put down in future documents.

We in the Philippines, with our human rights orientation and our pledge to the UN to champion regional human rights cooperation and protection, will work for a strong mechanism, not one that’s just going to be advisory, all of that is still open for discussion. But the fact is all ten countries of ASEAN have agreed to at least take this very important step.

The ASEAN Charter is a legally binding document that is why we are pushing for it. Today, there is no such document or understanding that could provide the legal power to enable the rest of ASEAN to see to it that Myanmar complies with human rights laws. All the ten member states will comply if the ASEAN makes a declaration or issues a decision to take a certain course of action.

MIRIAM: SENATE TO CONCUR WITH ASEAN CHARTER

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said that she will submit by next month her committee report recommending Senate concurrence with the Asean charter, and expects Senate concurrence before the end of the year.

“If all ten member states ratify the charter by December, it will enter into force in 2009. Thus, Asean will ratify its constitution even ahead of the European Union, whose charter was rejected by two countries,” the senator said.

Of the ten Asean members, seven have already ratified the charter, while three countries including the Philippines are engaged in the process of ratification.

The ten Asean members are: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia , Indonesia , Laos , Myanmar , Malaysia , the Philippines , Singapore , Thailand , and Vietnam .

“It was the Philippines that first proposed the Asean charter in the 1970s. To be consistent, the Senate should concur. The Asean charter is a treaty and is therefore binding,” she said.

Santiago said that although the Asean charter includes the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, it will speak out on humanitarian or self-defense events, such as the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar .

“It was also the Philippines who took the initiative in providing for an Asean human rights body, now part of the charter. If Myanmar ratifies the charter, it will be obliged to comply with its provisions and all other Asean agreements,” she said.

Santiago said the Asean Human Rights Body will enable Asean to stop depending on foreign human rights monitors, and instead manifest to the world Southeast Asian regional perspectives on human rights.

“The charter also enshrines the so-called Asean Way of settling differences, meaning consultation and consensus. This is the basic decision-making principle in Asean,” she said.

“The main tangible result of the charter will be the creation of an Asean Economic Community. This means the creation of a single market and product base. In the Asean Economic Community, there will be free flow of goods, services, investments, and capital. It will also facilitate movement of business persons, professionals, talents, and labor,” Santiago said.

The charter provision for the creation of an Asean Economic Community is a direct result of the Asean Economic Community blueprint signed in Cebu last year, when President Arroyo presided at the Asean Summit.

“The emergence of China and India as economic powers has created new realities for Asean. The Asean Economic Community will keep the Philippines competitive alongside these two Asian giants. The Asean Economic Community will be established by 2015,” Santiago said.

JPEPA HAS NUMBERS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said that Senate concurrence on Jpepa is “virtually assured,” because 14 senators have already signed the committee report.

“The required two-thirds vote of the Senate is only 15 senators, so we only need one more vote. That won’t be hard, because the issue of constitutionality has already been settled,” she said.

Santiago said that just a few days ago, Japanese foreign minister Masahiko Komura authorized Ambassador Makoto Katsura to sign an exchange of notes with foreign affairs secretary Alberto Romulo, in effect amending the treaty.

“The result of the exchange of notes will be that all Philippine constitutional provisions reserving certain economic activities to Filipinos and to corporations 60% Filipino owned shall prevail over Jpepa,” she said.

Santiago said that in effect, the exchange of notes will cancel the Jpepa provision that Japanese in our country would get “national treatment” – meaning, the same treatment as Filipinos in investment activities.

“Our national patrimony and natural resources will remain safely in Filipino hands,” she said.

Santiago said that pursuant to the RP Constitution, many areas of economic activity will continue to be reserved to Filipinos, such as land ownership, use of natural resources, operation of public utilities, practice of all professions, ownership of schools, of mass media, of advertising industry, etc.

“Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 13, an exchange of notes in effect constitutes a treaty in itself, provided it states that the exchange shall have that effect,” she said.

Santiago said that Jpepa might be RP’s most important bilateral economic agreement in the last 50 years.

“Agriculture and exports will be the biggest winners. The treaty will immediately have a positive impact on farmers, fishermen, and food processors,” she said.

Santiago said that the moment Jpepa becomes effective, immediately 95% of RP exports to Japan will enjoy zero duties.

“ Japan has already concluded similar economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with Singapore , Mexico , Malaysia , Thailand , Chile , Brunei , and Indonesia ,” she said.

Santiago said that Japan will certainly increase its foreign direct investment (FDI) in RP, which in 2002-2006 already amounted to US$938 million.

“Japan is our biggest source of official development assistance (ODA) which in 2006 already amounted to US$4.7 billion. With Jpepa, ODA will get even bigger,” she said.

Santiago said that with Jpepa, RP exports to Japan is expected to reach $405 million or P 559 billion by 2011.

“Although there will be zero tariffs on 145 waste products, they cannot come in, because they are banned by R.A. No. 6969 on toxic wastes, and R.A. No.9003 on ecological solid wastes,” she said.

Santiago also said that both countries are bound by the 2007 exchange of notes between the RP and Japanese foreign ministers, stating that “Japan would not be exporting wastes to RP, in accordance with the Basel Convention” on the control of transboundary moment of hazardous wastes.

The 14 senators who signed the committee report were: Sen. Santiago, Roxas, Angara , Arroyo, Enrile, Gordon, Lapid, Revilla, Zubiri, Biazon, Legarda, Estrada, Pangilinan, and Pimentel. All had reservations except Angara and Enrile.

The 5 senators who did not sign were: Honasan, Madrigal, Trillanes, Pia Cayetano, and Escudero.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

On today’s Senate foreign relations committee hearing

The resource panel synonymously endorsed Senate concurrence with two groups of treaties. One group consisted of the Mutual Legal Assistance treaties. This means that in criminal proceedings, the Philippines together with other country will perform certain services, if necessary, in connection with a criminal proceeding in that other country. For example, if they are looking for some witnesses, certain documents, if they want to see certain assets in the criminal proceeding in that country.

The resource panel also unanimously recommended concurrence with the Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaties. There are already 36 of such treaties, so I foresee this will be easily concurred in by the Senate. They are very non-controversial. It will encourage foreign direct investment because a capitalist will not come to the Philippines if his income will be taxed both in his home country and in the Philippines . We will have to forego or waive the taxes on that foreigner, but in compensation, that foreigner will be encouraged to provide foreign direct investment here. We are just following the path we already set with the 36 other Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaties.

The RP-Spain MLAT is different in a sense that even if the act which is involved in the proceedings does not constitute a crime in the Philippines , still the Philippines will be obliged to provide legal assistance. That is not a provision in the other treaties. But, I also noted that sometimes this is the result of negotiations. We cannot really have our own way all the time during the negotiation process. It doesn’t really bother me as long as the DFA will give me a written memorandum explaining why Spain took that recalcitrant stand. Possibly, they said either you include this provision or we don’t have a treaty. Sometimes we have good grounds based on their own peculiar circumstances.

On the Powercom hearing on Monday (12 May 2008)

I expect it to be a battle of titans. I will ask Mr. Winston Garcia of the GSIS to enumerate as briefly as possible the ways in which he thinks Meralco has been mismanaged such as to result in very high electricity rates. The JCPC or Powercom is not really concerned with the ownership issue. That is the business of business. But we in the JCPC are concerned with the issue of very high electricity rates. Pitong taon na ang ating Epira na gumawa ng pagbabago sa ating industriya ng kuryente, pero pagkatapos ng pitong taon, hindi pa rin nakamit yung tanging layunin na ibaba ang binabayad sa kuryente. Ibig sabihin lahat kami ay failure. Epira is a failure. The Senate is a failure. The executive branch is a failure.

Bakit? Dahil ang Meralco, dapat pasabugin iyan. Pugad iyan ng mga sindikato. Mas grabe pa iyan sa Bureau of Customs. Baka hindi alam iyan ng may-ari. Yun ang basehan kung bakit sinabi ng ibang senador na Meralco lang ang makakapagpatakbo sa Meralco. Ang ibig sabihin lang niyan ay napakaraming pasikot-sikot diyan. That is a conglomeration of mafias. I am sure, although I may not have the evidence, that there is a crime involved. That is a crime of a combination of a restraint in trade or monopoly. That is punishable under the Penal Code.

In America , ang anti-trust laws nila ay isang buong encyclopedia. Sa atin, isang provision lang ng Penal Code, hindi pa ginagamit ng Department of Justice. Maybe it is time that the DOJ made an example of Meralco employees and officials. I am not particularly talking about the Lopez group, they are simply the owners. Sometimes the owner just participates in the profits and allows other people to run their business. But, from the way we have seen how Epira cannot effectively lower the price of electricity, I am reasonably certain that there are criminal syndicates operating in Meralco, and they are all punishable for violating the Penal Code against combinations in the restraint of trade.

Sinasabi ng iba na ang kuryente na binibili niya hindi lamang sa Napocor kundi sa iba pang independent power producers (IPP) na pag-aari rin pala ng Meralco. Kaya binibilhan niya ang sarili din niya. That is self-dealing. That is inimical to the public interest, apart from being a criminal offense.

Maliban diyan, may isa pang batikos. Lahat daw ng materyales sa industriya ng kuryente ay binibili ng Meralco sa kumpanya ng pag-aari rin niya. Ang mga poste, electrical wiring, electric meters, and all other components of the delivery system for electric power. Tingnan natin ang mga batikos. So far, all we have are accusations.

Basically all these accusations are intended to wrest control of Meralco, and it is no concern of ours here in the Powercom. Our concern here is very basic: Bakit napakamahal ng kuryente?

Ipalista natin kay Mr. Garcia o sa kanyang representative ang lahat ng argumento niya, at makikita natin diyan kung ano ang dahilan kung bakit mataas ang presyo ng kuryente, at pagkatapos ay ipasagot natin sa Meralco. Sa ganoong paraan, makikita natin who is making more sense.

Plus, mayroong mga lupon sa electric power industry na nagmamaniobra na hanggang ngayon na ang ating kuryente ay manggaling sa coal, dahil ang laki ng ipinapatong nila kung magbenta sila ng coal sa Napocor. Titingnan din natin iyan pagkatapos nito. Kaya maari na ang imbestigasyon sa Senado sa Lunes ay matutuloy sa kasunod pang Lunes tungkol naman sa coal.

Ang resulta nito ay lalagyan natin ng proper provisions ang Epira law, which is in the process now of being amended by the Senate.

Malipat man natin ang pag-aari o pagpapatakbo ng Meralco galing sa pribadong kamay papunta sa gobyerno, meron ba tayong garantiya na magiging mas maganda ang pagpapatakbo nito o magiging mas mababa ng presyo ng kuryente, dahil kung bababa agad ang presyo ng kuryente, lahat tayo at kami sa Powercom ay pabor na magkaroon ng ownership o management takeover. There is no such guarantee, kasi maski sinong commissioner mo diyan, talagang kikita at kikita ang mga sindikato kasi matagal na sila doon at mahirap silang kuwestiyunin. Marami silang pera kaya sisiraan nila agad ang bagong tagahawak ng sistema nila hanggang magresign na lang ang pobre. Kaya dapat diyan sana , meron tayong administrator ng Meralco who is very street smart. Otherwise he will only be an office technocrat and he will definitely fail the expectations of the public. We need a graftbuster.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

On Congress possibly investigating Meralco’s high power rates

Kailangan na talagang imbestigahan ang Meralco dahil napakataas ng binabayad natin sa kuryente, at mataas naman pala ang kinikita nila. Kukumbidahin ko ang chairman ng House committee on energy na sumama sa Senate energy committee para sabay na lang kaming mag-imbestiga. Nalaman ko na inutusan ni Speaker Nograles si Cong. Mikey Arroyo, na chair ng House committee on energy na imbestigahan ang maaring pagbabago sa pag-aari ng Meralco para matupad ang pagbababa ng bayad sa kuryente. Kung gayon Kinukumbida ko ang House committee on energy na sabay na lang kami ng imbestigasyon ngayong linggong ito, kung maaari sa Biyernes, para iisa na lang at hindi paulit-ulit.

Ang pinakamalaking tanong ditto ay bakit sa buong Asya tayo ang bansa na may pinakamataas na presyo ng kuryente, samantalang naibenta na ang isang bahagi ng Napocor at ibebenta pa ang naiwan.

Ang isa pang tanong ay kung bakit napakabagal ang pagpapa-privatize ng Napocor. Kung totoo ang sinasabi ng Pangulong Arroyo na bababa na ang pagbenta ng kuryente ng Napocor sa Meralco, bakit hindi natin nararamdaman na bumaba ang pagbayad natin sa Meralco. Dahil kung mura ang bili nila ng kuryente sa Napocor, na pag-aari ng gobyerno, dapat mura rin ang signil sa taong-bayan. Nakikita natin na may disconnect sa prosesong ito. At bakit kung nanakaw ang kuryente, iyong tinatawag na systems losses, bakit tayo ang magbabayad nito? Hindi naman natin ito napakinabangan. Dalawang beses nang sinabi ng Korte Suprema na masyadong mataas ang pagsingil ng kuryente ang Meralco. Inutsan pa itong ibalik ang Meralco na ibalik sa consumers ang binayad natin. Kung gayon, mayroong may kasalanan diyan Bakit walang imebstigasyon kung bakit mataas ang singil sa kuryente at kung sino ang may pananagutan doon? Lahat ito ay dapat masagot sa joint hearing ng committees of energy ng House at Senate.

There is no congruence in the explanation of the government that it has already lowered the sale price by Napocor to Meralco, and yet Meralco has not lowered its own selling price to the retail consumer. Why is there a disharmony between the process of generating power and bringing it to the consumer? That is the function of the JCPC under the Epira, to see to it that the electricity rates are set as low as possible. Apparently we have not achieved it. Meralco now is the focus of attention and what is stopping the power industry from lowering electric rates so that we can be competitive in the region.

What will be the objectives of the hearings?

If we want to insert more provisions in the Epira law, which is already under debate on the Senate floor. We are still in the process of seeing what kinds of amendments to the Epira will be made. And if we hold these hearings, the conclusion will take the form of possible amendments to the Epira law.

On the possibility of the baselines bills to be reassigned to another committee

Ang ating mungkahi diyan ay tapusin muna ang pag-aaral ng isang grupo ng mga eksperto, na tatawagin nating Congressional Commission on National Territory , at saka tayo gumawa ng public hearing at possible plernary debates tungkol sa bagay na iyon.

Kailangan ko talagang aksyunan ang baselines bills. Ang sinabi ko lang ay hindi ako papayag na madaliin iyon dahil ito ay napakalalim na paksa. Hindi maari na sukat pinag-usapan mo o inisip mo ay gagalaw ito dahil nakasalalay rin dito ang ibang bansa. Kaya dapat diyan ay pag-aralan nating mabuti.

This is really an international problem because it concerns the concept of the extended continental shelf. We need to understand this profoundly. We cannot act on the spur of the moment.

Since it involves a lot of issues, can the bills be tackled by the Committee of the Whole?

Iyan ang siguradong paraan na babagal ang discussion diyan. Una, dahil ang paksa na ito ay para sa mga dalubhasa, which requires highly expert opinions because we shall be debating in an international forum with experts from every country in the world. So we better be sure of our scientific, technical, and legal data. So in that case, we need to conduct it by committee, not by a committee of the whole.