ROAD TAX BIGGEST SCANDAL OF DECADE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the economic affairs committee, said the road tax, collected since 2001 from every motor vehicle , is “the biggest scandal of this decade,” because officials refused to observe guidelines, turning it into “secret” pork barrel funds for influential politicians.

The senator said the road tax is the government’s third largest source of tax revenue.

Santiago said the road tax collected from 2001 to July 2009 reached a total of some P56.5 billion, but most of it was given at random by the Road Board secretariat, which has only nine members, of which only five are technical people.

“The road tax is not part of the budget, thus there is no legislative oversight when Congress deliberates on the annual budget.  There is no transparency, because DPWH and the Road Board do not post on their websites the list of projects and programs actually funded,” she said.

“The Road Board executive director is in effect a dictatorial king of a financial empire, accountable to no one, with freedom to set giant kickbacks from public funds,” she said.

The feisty senator said that the road fund was not allocated according to legal procedures, but was based instead on the request of politicians, other government officials, and district engineers.

“Contrary to law, billions of funds were diverted from road maintenance and allegedly used to install traffic lights, road safety devices, and vehicle pollution equipment.  These all reeks of overpricing and ghost purchases,” she said.

The senator cited the World Bank Report of February 2009, which in effect states that the percentage of paved national roads in good to fair condition increased only by 1.1 percent per year since the road tax was collected.

“The road tax has not been abused; it has been raped.  We should check the lifestyle of the Road Board secretariat executives and if justified charge them with plunder and with illegal overdrafts,” she said.

Santiago said the Road Board executive directors were: 2004 Remedios Belleza, 2005-07 Rodolfo Puno, 2008 Puno and Danilo Valero, and 2009 Valero.

The Road Board, which meets once every quarter, is composed of four cabinet members from public works, transportation, budget, and finance, with three private sector representatives.

The Road Board is assisted by a secretariat with only five technical people: executive director, fiscal controller, executive assistant, engineer, and accountant.

“A multi-billion agency like the Road Board, with five technical people are incapable of monitoring the use of public funds and supervising projects and activities,” the senator said.

Santiago said it was “anomalous” for the executive director to refuse to submit documents as demanded by the COA on the pretext that the public works secretariat has not yet approved the request.

COA submitted to the public works secretary a written request last March 23, and followed it up on May 18, but until now the documents have not reached the COA.

“Why is the executive director so reluctant to tell the public about the allocation of the funds, what actual procedures he followed, and the criteria and basis for selecting the roads?  This is a big stink,” she said.

Santiago said that the COA audit report lists many violations of existing budget, accounting, and auditing rules and regulations, including:

• Overstatement of receivables – P 160 M 
• Unreliable yearend balances of inventory accounts – P 31.6 M 
• Unreliable property, plant, and equipment balances – P 453 M
• Invalid charges – P 76 M
• Irregular issuance of gasoline to private vehicles – P 0.48 M and non-compliance with prescribed controls on fuel consumption.
• Irregular and excessive disbursements in the implementation of projects – P 12 M
• Fund for national roads used for provincial road – P 10 M
• Failure to remit unutilized balances of fund transfer – P 0.56 M
• Failure to post warranty security for completed projects – P 57 M 
• Overdraft by regional offices – P 1.47 B
• Unreconciled deposits of collections and penalties – P 1.26 B
• Inadequate road maintenance in Region 4
• Absence of guidelines in determining number of workers needed and manner of payment for OYSTER program (Out-of-School Youth Serving Toward Economic Recovery) – P 567 M
• Unimplemented MVUC projects – P 57 M
• Unfinished MVUC projects for more than two years – P 5.7 M
• LTO Motor Vehicle Inspection Unit (MVIS) Project not operational
• Idle smoke emission test equipment – P 5.5 M
• Slow implementation of projects under Special Vehicle Pollution Control
• Unremitted taxes withheld – P 1.9 M

Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview

9 September 2009

On her letter to the Ombudsman regarding the infomercials of cabinet officials 

Nang natapos namin ang aming public hearing tungkol sa mga infomercials ng mga cabinet member na ang gamit pala nila ay pondo ng gobyerno, kaagad nagbigay ako ng kopya ng aking committee report sa Ombudsman. Sumagot naman siya agad na iimbestigahan niya. That is what we call a preliminary investigation. You’ll remember that I gave the cabinet members until the end of August to pull out their commercials in case the contract has already covered that period. 

Pero September na ngayon, at meron pa ring naiiwan according to my staff. Meron pang apat pa (VP Noli de Castro, Sec.. Ronaldo Puno, Pagcor Chair Efraim Genuino, MMDA Chair Bayani Fernando). Yung iba, pinull-out na nila. Kaya ginampanan ko ang sinabi kong gagawin. Pinapaalala ko lang sa Ombudsman na kung maari magfile na ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan. Itong mga ito, dahil ang kasong kriminal diyan ay malversation of public funds, hindi nila ginamit ng maayos ang pera ng gobyerno, o inaamin na nila sa pamamagitan ng linya sa kanilang infomercials na “Paid for by friends of _____”. Kung paid for nga ba talaga ng kanilang friends, ibig sabihin tumanggap sila ng napakalaking pera sa kanilang mga kaibigan, at iyan ay bawal ayon sa Anti-Graft Act. Kung hindi man friends nila ang nagbayad kundi sila mismo at pinalitaw lamang nila na friends nila ang nagbayad, iyon ay kasalanan pa rin sa batas dahil ibig sabihin meron siyang unexplained wealth. Kaya kahit anong sabihin nila, wala silang depensa. Kaya tayo nagbigay ng palugit, baka hindi lang nila nalalaman. Huwag naman sana sila magmatigas nang ganoon dahil nakakahiya sa presidente at maiisip ng publiko na ang ating presidente ay sumasangayon sa mga cabinet members na ito. Hindi sila nagdudulot ng karangalan sa ating presidente kundi nagbibigay pa ng perwisyo.

On its implication of FVR’s group leaving the administration coalition

Naturally it makes the coalition of the administration weaker. To what extent it is weakened is the question. It is not really a question of parting from the administration coalition because all the time those two people have been working against the administration—they have said so in public. So it was completely expected, something that you can foresee. The question there is how weak the administration coalition now be because of the separation of these two. I can say that it has virtually zero effect on the full strength of the administration because the allies of the administration depend on the administration to put the force of its moral authority and the equity of its incumbency to help them during the campaign. During a campaign, it is not the personalities who are involved to determine where the candidate will affiliate himself, it is how much resources and how much more votes the party or coalition will be able to give to the candidate.

Laos na ba sina FVR?

Yes. In effect they are bargaining because they were bargaining and they have actually fulfilled their threat, but we shall see whether anyone will go with them or they are all alone crossing the sea and wandering around the desert. I think that that will happen. It will be biblical in proportion.

Is this a loss for President Arroyo?

Hindi naman, dahil noon pa they were taking potshots at her already. And when she caught them with their hands in the cookie jar, she gave their wrists a slap, and they pretend to be offended.. But the thing is, they were caught in the act. So I think that this is so much better because it clears the air.

On FVR supporting Sen. Aquino’s bid for the presidency

I don’t know if he has forgiven Tita Cory Aquino for marching in the streets against him when he tried to amend the Constitution so he could extend his stay in power. I was together with my ninang, Pres. Aquino, when she did that because I was also against charter change at that time, and I won the case in the Supreme Court which I myself argued. So I don’t know if he can get over that.

On Sen. Aquino’s decision to run as president

That is a foreseeable event. The question now is what will the surveys show. There are people willing to say hallelujahs every time there is a new leader in the horizon, hoping that they could get something out of it. The hallelujah chorus is always present in any presidential camp. But the issue will be how will Sen. Aquino fare in the next presidential elections. He has now confirmed that he is a presidentiable.. We shall now see, since the person he replaced placed only about number four in the recent surveys, whether he can exceed that number, and then we would see if it was right for Sen. Roxas to give way for Sen. Aquino. But if not, then the LP will be having a tough time in the presidential campaign.

On her advice to Sen. Noynoy Aquino 

Obviously everybody does know that surveys have already taken the place of party conventions. You’ll notice that political parties no longer hold conventions to determine who will be their candidate. People just go by survey. We tried to legislate or regulate these survey companies but we were unsuccessful here in the senate. 

On the word war between former President Estrada and Sen. Lacson, with Sen. Lacson to deliver a privilege speech next week

You can bet that Sen. Jinggoy Estrada will certainly rise also on a question of privilege maybe the next day so that he will have enough time to rebut all the points. But I don’t know whether all of these are related to our basic function of legislation.

PALACE SHOULD STOP ILLEGAL CABINET INFOMERCIALS

BY SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate:

The Rhinoceros is Thick-Skinned

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

DBM Should Not Allow Ad Expenses

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

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

COA Audit of Advertising Expenses

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

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

In Round Figures:

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

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

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

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

No Legal Basis for Infomercials

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

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

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

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

Timing is Dead Giveaway

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

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

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

COA Infomercials Unnecessary

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

According to COA, the audit criteria are as follows:

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

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

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

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

Ads Paid by Friends Constitute Indirect Bribery

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIRIAM TO GRILL CABINET OFFICIALS ON INFOMERCIALS IN SENATE HEARING

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate economic affairs committee, today said she has set the public hearing on the controversial infomercials of cabinet officials this Friday, 14 August 2009. 

Santiago said she will issue invitations to the concerned cabinet members to appear in Friday’s hearing. 

“If they do not appear on Friday, I will issue a subpoena to compel them to appear before the Senate,” she said. 

In a resolution she filed Monday, Santiago cited the following cabinet members and other high-ranking government officials who appeared in government-funded infomercials:

• Vice-President Noli de Castro 


• Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno 


• Health Secretary Francisco Duque III 


• Finance Secretary Margarito Teves 


• Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro 


• Public Works and Highway Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane 


• Education Secretary Jesli Lapus 


• Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman 


• Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor) Chair Ephraim Genuino 


• Technical Education and Skills Development Authority Chair (Tesda) Augusto Syjuco 


• Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Chair Bayani Fernando 


• Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay 

The feisty senator said she will ask these cabinet officials to explain the legal basis for the use of public funds for advertising themselves in the infomercials. 

Santiago said she will also invite the finance officer and the Commission on Audit (COA) resident auditor of each department to shed light on the sources of funding of the infomercials. 

She said the infomercials are being used to campaign early, in violation of the Constitution and election laws. 

“Unless a person is blind, deaf, or dumb, it is crystal clear that the alleged infomercials of cabinet members are intended to camouflage the violation of the campaign ban, for the simple reason that these cabinet members engage only in such infomercials in the year prior to election year and at no other time, and for no other reason than personal political publicity,” she said. 

“By using public funds, these government officials have the financial mechanism to campaign ahead of others,” she added. 

Santiago had earlier filed a petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 184044, Miriam Defensor Santiago v. Comelec), seeking an injunction against some of her fellow senators from conducting a premature campaign in the guise of endorsing certain commercial products. 

“If I want to enforce the campaign ban against my own colleagues in the Senate, with even more reason I should seek the enforcement of the ban against cabinet officials who are engaged in premature campaign through the infomercials,” Santiago said.

MIRIAM SEEKS PROBE OF CABINET SENATORIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIRIAM ASKS NBI TO PROBE WORLD BANK DEALS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the economic affairs committee, requested justice secretary Raul Gonzalez to direct the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct a “confidential investigation” to help identify the politicians and other officials mentioned in the World Bank report as facilitators of collusion in rigged biddings.

“The NBI should activate its assets and confidential informants to find out who in the public works department is helping private contractors to corner public biddings of World Bank-funded projects,” Santiago said.

Santiago said her committee needs documentary and testimonial evidence of collusion, before it can recommend prosecution to the Ombudsman.

“The World Bank report, coming from a respected world agency, should be taken at face value. Under our Rules of Court, we have to presume that it has performed its official duty in the regular manner,” Santiago said.

Santiago disagreed with certain representatives that the contractors blacklisted by the World Bank should be exonerated.

“If there is any evidence on either side, then the presumption of innocence has been overturned by the World Bank report. We have no access to the Bank’s documents, but we have to take their report at face value,” she said.

Santiago said that the Senate, on its own, is not authorized to conduct field investigations because that is a function given to the NBI.

“Because the NBI belongs to the executive branch, I cannot order it to investigate. I have to make a request through the justice secretary who has control and supervision over the NBI,” she said.

Santiago said that she gave a copy of her letter to Gonzalez to NBI Director Nestor Mantaring.

THE CONTRACTORS

Privilege Speech on 26 January 2009)

Mr. President:

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

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

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

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

• Tagaytay-Palico Road – P104.20 M


• Road concreting Palawan – P322.20 M


• Tagaytay City Flyover – P292.94 M


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


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


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


• Iloilo East Coast – Capiz Road – P 530.59 M

Second, Cavite Ideal Construction:

• Naga-Toledo Road – P 805.6 M


• Sablayan Road, Occidental Mindoro – P 889.3 M


• Tacloban Road, Leyte – P 964 M


• C-5 flyover, Metro Manila – P 765 M


• Putlan bridge, Nueva Ecija – P 205.6 M


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


• Rehab project Echague, Isabela – P 587.9 M


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


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


• Civil works Reina Mercedes, Isabela – P 562.5 M


• Macalelon Road, Quezon – P 654.7 M


• Aritao Road, Baguio – P 1,422.4 M


• SLEX Service Road, Metro Manila – P 524.4 M


• Arterial road, South Leyte – P 829.7 M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should be done to Gen. Versoza? 

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

Should they both be suspended while being investigated? 

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

Should Dela Paz be held under house arrest? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview after the Senate hearing on the fertilizer scam involving Jocelyn Bolante

It does not compute at all. Even if you use common sense, the story just does not coincide with reality. 

Una, meron siyang solong kapangyarihan sa halagang halos isang bilyong piso. Walang undersecretary na may ganoong kapangyarihan. Katangi-tangi siya. 

Pangalawa, sabi niya wala siyang pakialam sa supplier, kasi ang supplier diyan kikita. Pero sa halos buong Pilipinas, iisa lang ang supplier, ang FESHAN suppliers. And I have to tell you that according to my records, he is intimately connected with FESHAN suppliers, in fact he admitted on the stand that his family is in the agriculture business. It’s not impossible that he would have a working relationship with FESHAN suppliers. Incidentally, that supplier does not exist.  

Ngayon, ang problema natin ay wala man lamang fertilizer dahil ang buong halaga ng fertilizer fund ay napunta at pinagparte-parte sa mga kickback ng lahat ng involved: si Bolante, ang local government officials, ang runner, at supplier. Sila lang naman ang kumita doon, walang dumating sa mga magsasaka na fertilizer. 

On Bolante’s performance in the hearing 

He was lying under oath out of sheer necessity. That is the problem. As I have said, he was defending the indefensible. In fact, if the Senate were to be strict about the rules, he should be cited for contempt. When I was a trial judge and the witness was blatantly lying under oath, I simply call the sheriff to put him to jail. If you keep on consistently lying under oath that is already contempt of court because it shows you do not respect the judge or the court enough to tell the truth. 

  He should be cited for contempt and his lawyers as well for coaching him in that manner. I think that they already pushed the envelope so far. There is a very thin line between performing your function as a lawyer to defend your client with all your might and conniving with your client to tell an outright barefaced lie.  

He is just intractable, meaning he just took a position and stuck to it, as if he were cemented to that platform. You cannot blame the person because, as I’ve said, the law always considers if the person if faced with a question of survival. Sometimes he is forced to lie and secondly we take account of feelings even in the crafting or the design of our laws, we know that he will likely commit perjury. Although it is reprehensible to lie under oath—and that actually is a crime called perjury—still, we take into consideration all these inclinations of human nature. 

Does PGMA have any involvement in this? 

The president of course is the Chief Executive. A cabinet member acts as her alter ego. Puwede rin na ang alter ego niya, which was the secretary of agriculture, could have been acting, or maybe even using her name. But I have no basis. I don’t want to speculate. 

What cases can be filed against Bolante? 

Madami. Violation of the Anti-graft Law, malversation of public funds, violation of the Anti-plunder Act, and violation of the Procurement Law, to say the least. 

Should Bolante return for questioning for another hearing? 

Oo. He raised more questions than he answered. 

Is the Senate inviting local officials in the next hearing? 

We are not investigating the local officials. We are investigating the process by which government funds disappear. 

Is this hearing a useless exercise? 

This is not useless because it is useful for the judge and the public to see the demeanor of the witness. Gusto ko talagang Makita siya para Makita ko and demeanor niya, ang pagmumukha niya, dahil ang trained na judge ay makikita kung nagsasabi ng totoo o hindi

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.  

MIRIAM SAYS MOSCOW CASH MAY BE FROM COPS’ “PATRONS”, WANTS NAPOLCOM REORG

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that the cash caught by Moscow customs officials from retired Philippine National Police (PNP) Director Eliseo de la Paz last Saturday may have come from “police patrons.”

“The source of the money should be clarified—if it is public money, then the question is, who authorized it. If it is private money, where did it come from?” she said.

Santiago, vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, wants the Senate to investigate why De la Paz was carrying an excessive amount of money for a PNP-sanctioned foreign trip.

“He could have deposited it to the PNP’s account, if there was any, and only carry the amount needed to pay for airport fees and other expenses on their way back to the Philippines,” Santiago said.

The senator also called for the reorganization of the National Police Commission (Napolcom) through Senate Bill No. 2269. She wants Napolcom to have more control over the PNP on top of its administrative and supervisory functions.

“It has to be given more teeth rather than just be a paper tiger,” Santiago said.

Under Santiago’s proposed law, the Napolcom will take full charge of PNP’s operations relating to public safety. It will also have direct influence over matters the as such the PNP’s budget, and the standards of appointment, performance and activities of police personnel.

END PRACTICE OF POLITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS - MIRIAM

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, an award-winning graft buster, filed a bill to put a stop to the practice of political recommendations by public officials in appointing persons to government posts.

“This practice perpetuates the “padrino system”, which allows the appointment of unqualified individuals to government positions over those who are already qualified on their merits,” Santiago said.

Santiago says Senate Bill No. 2616, or the Anti-Political Recommendation Act, aims to strengthen the country’s bureaucracy by granting the appointing agencies their rightful discretion over their employee management and making sure that such decisions are made without political influence.

Under that bill any public officer or employee is prohibited from making recommendations for the appointment, promotion, assignment, transfer or designation of any person to a government position, and also punishes those who requests or solicits political recommendations. Exempted from the proposed law are requests for performance evaluations and requirements for government employment

Those proven guilty of the offense will be fined and imprisoned for not less than a year. They will also be subject of removal or dismissal from public office even without criminal prosecution.

MIRIAM: NAME SOLONS IN SECRET BUDGET INSERTS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, vice-chair of the Senate finance committee, said that if congressional insertions are made on the floor in plenary session, they are regular; but if they are made at the secret bicameral meetings, they are irregular and their authors should come forward and identify themselves.

She said that apparently, Senate President Manny Villar initiated the congressional insertion during the period of amendment on the floor in plenary session, which renders it regular.

Santiago issued the dare to other solons during the public hearing yesterday on the budget process, particularly on the alleged double entry for the C-5 extension project.

The exasperated Santiago issued the call for solons to identify themselves voluntarily, after budget secretary Rolando Andaya, Jr. refused to release the names of the legislators who made the congressional insertions, during the bicameral meetings.

Andaya also failed to give Santiago his estimate of the total congressional initiatives, after admitting that in the public works budget alone, the initiatives totaled P17.5 billion.

On Santiago ’s question, public works secretary Hermogenes Ebdane said that the total budget cost of the controversial Garcia Ave. Extension from SLEX to Sucat road, including right of way, is P 4.49 billion.

During the hearing, Santiago and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, chair of the Senate finance committee, disagreed on the respective roles of the President and the Congress in jointly exercising the “power of the purse.”

Enrile said that the President’s budget is merely a working draft, and is not binding on Congress.

Santiago said that since the President’s budget is the result of the collective expertise of the budget department, finance department, and the NEDA, it should be respected and, as much as possible, should be left intact.

“Massive congressional insertions embedded in the 2008 budget during the secret bicam meetings changed beyond recognition the priorities observed by the executive branch,” she said.

The feisty senator said that she respectfully dissented from Enrile’s view, “at the risk of being smacked by my elder and better.” The two senators were seated side by side, but were amicable.

Santiago said budget amendments made on the floor are regular, but if made in the secret bicam meetings, they are “devious and suspicious.”

Santiago said that this week she will file her bill called Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008, with certain features which she strongly advocated during the hearing.

“Congressmen who propose an earmark should be identified,” she said.

Santiago said all bicameral conference committee reports should include a list of all earmarks in the budget.

“To observe the constitutional duty of transparency, the bicameral conference committee report on the budget, including the list of earmarks, should be made available to the Senate and to the general public on the internet for at least 24 hours before its consideration in plenary session,” she said.

Santiago said that every earmark proposal should be accompanied by an explanation of its essential government purpose.

“I am also considering adopting the American law and filing a Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,” she said.

Santiago said that her second bill will require the DBP to create a searchable data base of all government-appropriated funds and their recipients.

In her opening statement at the hearing, Santiago told the TV audience that what we in the Philippines call “congressional insertions” are in the U.S. called “earmarks.”

“Even in the U.S. , the executive and legislative branches cannot agree on the definition of ‘earmarks,’ which we call congressional insertions,” she said.

Santiago said that on the one hand, the U.S. executive branch, through the Office of Management and Budget, defines earmarks as “funds provided by the Congress for projects where the congressional direction circumvents executive branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage critical aspects of the fund’s allocation process.”

Santiago said that on the other hand, the U.S. legislative branch, through the Congressional Research Service, defines an earmark as a provision that specifies certain congressional spending priorities and may appear either in the text of the budget or the report of the bicameral conference committee on the budget.

“The issue of congressional insertions is paramount. Thus, earmarks figured in the first round of the U.S. presidential debate between McCain and Obama, and earmarks are being raised as an issue against vice-presidentiable Sarah Palin,” she said.

MIRIAM BARES P 11.5 B SECRET PORK

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, vice-chair of the Senate finance committee, said that the 2008 budget was allegedly bloated by P11.5 billion for public works projects, which were secretly inserted by means of so-called “congressional insertions.”

“The life of an appropriation is two years. In 2009, President Arroyo may release these P11.5 billion insertions. By 2010, each project may continue to be implemented. Hence, I strongly suspect that most of these secret projects are going to be used by incumbent legislators for the 2010 elections,” she said.

Santiago also said that among the congressional insertions, P 7.9 billion are large lump-sum appropriations.

“The question is who will determine which project will be funded out of the two lump-sum funds. They should be subjected to the usual social benefit-cost analysis. This could be a standing invitation to corruption,” she said.

Santiago slammed certain projects allegedly initiated by individual legislators, although they have “low economic return.”

“The most glaring low-priority project is the construction of so-called multipurpose buildings, which reached a total of P131.1 million,” she said.

Santiago also hit individual legislators who initiated certain projects that she said “should be better done by local governments or government-owned corporations, like the Local Water Utilities Administration.”

Among these “rich potentials for kickbacks” that she cited are public markets in: Tabaco City ; San Vicente, Ilocos Sur; Arayat, Pampanga; and Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur.

“There is even a lump-sum appropriation of P165 million for Other Buildings. These are projects that have not even been identified yet. Since it is a lump sum, it is most likely subject to abuse,” she said.

Santiago said that certain projects which are best done through the Local Water Utilities Administration, but which are included in the 2008 budget are the water systems in: Pangasinan, fifth district; Bataan, second district; Muñoz, Nueva Ecija; Negros Oriental, first district; Negros Oriental, third district; Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur; and South Cotabato, second district.

BUDGET PROCESS SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT

Privilege speech on 16 September 2008

The C-5 Extension Controversy

The 2008 budget, aka Republic Act No. 9498, or the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, appropriated the sum of P200 million for the C-5 extension in two entries. One is found on page 563 and the other is found on page 646. It appears to me that the explanation is that both are valid entries, because each one constitutes an installment on the total amount of appropriation which was reportedly estimated at P 4 billion. This budget has been approved both by Congress and the President.

It appears that the center of this controversy is not the Senate President, but the Department of Budget and Management. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of Budget and Management and the Office of the Executive Secretary, with the assistance of the line departments, to review the enrolled copy of the GAA, identify the differences in the proposed President’s Budget and proposed budget as approved by Congress, and recommend appropriate actions for the identified differences and the budget in its entirety.

The process can be described as follows:

First, the key DBM officials are mobilized to identify the changes made on the President’s Budget. They consult with line agencies and produce a document called Statement of Difference.

Second, appropriate recommendations are prepared for each item of difference. Some changes may be allowed (this shows respect for the legislature, recognizing that the executive department does not have a monopoly of good ideas), others vetoed expressly, and others may be mentioned under Observations.

Third, the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs reviews the draft veto message.

Fourth, the draft veto message is discussed informally with the chairperson of the House appropriations committee. This step is optional but recommended in order to maintain good working relationship with members of Congress and avoid an override of the veto.

In the light of the process I have just outlined, I reach the following conclusions and observations:

First, Congress inserted a new budget item worth P200 million, at the request of a legislator.

Second, the Secretary of Budget and Management confirmed that there was double appropriation but that no funds will be released for the second appropriation. This raises the following questions. If there were double appropriation, why didn’t the DBM Secretary recommend a line-item veto of the redundant budget item? How can his statement be reconciled with the alleged statement by DPWH authorities that the road project has two components, including a flyover, which necessitated the additional P200 million?

Third, the additional appropriation for the C-5 road project still stands. It might be used to form part of the ‘general savings’ and then realigned to augment any existing item in the budget – including the original C-5 road project proposed in the President’s Budget.

Fourth, the ‘double appropriation’ for the C-5 road project casts serious doubt on the integrity of the FY 2008 general appropriations act. Hence, yesterday I filed a resolution for this Congress to create an independent group to review the FY 2008 GAA in its entirety, and to recommend measures to prevent double appropriation in the future.

Reforms in Congressional Insertions

A strict interpretation of budgetary powers of Congress is that it has the power to cut, but not add to or initiate, the funding of programs and projects not proposed in the President’s Budget. The Constitution provides that Congress may decrease but not increase the budget as proposed by the President. A strict interpretation of this provision is that it applies not only to the aggregate level of the budget, but also to the proposed budget for every program or project contained in the President’s Budget. This strict interpretation has long been abandoned.

It is now accepted practice that Congress may cut the appropriation for any program or project of the President’s Budget, and use the pool of appropriation cuts to increase (augment) the budget of any proposed – or even new – items in the President’s Budget. For example, the budget for fertilizer subsidy may be reduced by P100M and then use the cut to increase the appropriations for a proposed road Alpha (say from P100 to P200M) or use the P100M to fund congressional initiatives (say P50M for road Beta and P50M for road Omega).

Abstracting from the constitutionality of the current practice, what is inherently wrong in the current practice is the lack of transparency and the abuse of authority of the conference committee.

I humbly submit that the current practice violates the Constitution, Article 3, aka Bill of Rights:

Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

I am not aware that Congress has passed any law limiting this constitutional right with respect to the budget process.

First Reform: Three days’ Notice of Bicam Decisions

The proceedings of the bicameral conference committee, which political analysts call the “third chamber”, are conducted under the most secretive environment. There are no minutes of proceedings. Only the co-chairpersons and the members of the bicameral committee can now identify, from memory, who initiated a particular change and how the committee addressed it. During the last bicameral committee meeting, the matter of reconciling the House and Senate versions of the appropriations bill was delegated to the respective heads of the House and Senate contingents. On the one hand, this ‘four-eyes’ arrangement facilitates decision-making; on the other hand, it heightens the lack of transparency of the whole process.

I submit that for good governance, promoting transparency should take precedence to speedy decision-making. The following rule should be adopted: all decisions made by the conference committee should be printed and circulated to members of both houses of Congress three days before the final ratification of the bicameral committee report.

Second Reform: Limit Bicam to Reconciliation of Disagreeing Provisions

The bicameral committee is mandated to reconcile conflicting provisions of the House version and the Senate version of the appropriations bill. Yet, it is not uncommon to find in past conference committee decisions where new changes are introduced in the proposed, although they are not contained in either the House version or the Senate version of the bill.

For example, under current rules, with a budget proposal of P1.0 trillion pesos, the House may approve a P 900 billion budget (with a cut of P100 billion), while the Senate may cut deeper and approve a P850 billion budget, and yet the conference committee may agree to approve a P1.0 trillion-peso budget. There is no assurance, however, that the composition of the P1-trillion bicameral-committee approved budget would be the same as the composition of the P1 trillion President’s Budget. The P900 million House-approved appropriations bill may contain congressional initiatives totaling P10 billion; the P850 million Senate-approved appropriations bill may contain additional congressional initiatives totaling P5 billion; yet, the final appropriations bill as recommended by the bicameral conference committee may contain a total of P20 billion congressional initiatives. Hence, the bicameral conference committee goes beyond reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget bill. It introduces budget items that are non-existent in both budget bills, under the most secretive conditions.

The following rule should be introduced: the mandate of the bicameral conference committee shall be limited to reconciling the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the appropriations bill. No new budget programs, projects and activities shall be introduced during the process of budget reconciliation.

Third Reform: Limit Amount of Congressional Insertions

Like the pork barrel, the congressional insertions which are usually made in the budget of the DPWH, should be limited to a uniform amount for members of the Senate, and to a uniform amount for members of the House. And just like the pork barrel, the practice of congressional insertions should be made available to all legislators wishing to avail of it.

Fourth Reform: Indicate Installment Number

The budget should indicate if an appropriation is part of a multi-year “installment plan.” If the total amount for a public works project is too big to be appropriated in one budget alone, it might be appropriated in several budgets at smaller installments. In this case, every appropriation should be marked as “Installment 1.” Thus, we shall avoid public suspicion of an improper double entry.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

On premature campaigning through commercial advertisements

I have taken the liberty of writing the chairman of the Comelec, former Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, so that Comelec can study and then issue a resolution on the question of premature campaigning. We know that the law prohibits premature campaigning but several putative candidates for the 2010 elections, whether they are presidentiables, vice presidentiables, or senatoriables are already campaigning in the guise of commercial advertising, particularly on television or billboards. That is a violation of the law, and we lawmakers in the Senate should not be among the first to violate the law.

Their excuses are very thin and very prevaricating. It is a reality that in our Election Code there is no premature campaigning if the candidate has not yet filed a certificate of candidacy, and that would be allowed once election period begins. So to argue that before the certificate of candidacy has been filed any person can campaign is very specious. It is a way of contravening the law, or breaking the law but making a very sham excuse for it.

Secondly, the common excuse is the Election Code also allowed campaigning if it is intended to capture a seat as an official candidate of a national party. But basically, all these candidates are sure of being nominated by their party, so again that is a false and a mentally dishonest argument.

Apparently the Senate President has said that the Senate has to make a study on premature campaigning. But I humbly submit that primary jurisdiction to reconcile and interpret these appropriate provisions of the Election Code does not belong to Congress. It belongs to the Comelec, because under the Constitution, the Comelec has the primary function to enforce and administer our election laws. In other cases, the Supreme Court can pass resolutions interpreting certain provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. That is what they should do now so that we could stop all these pretense that they are not campaigning but they already are inflicting pain and boredom to the TV and radio audiences by campaigning so early.

Some argue that they are merely earning extra income. Give me a break! A senator’s total remuneration is more than handsome. So they cannot claim that they are indigent, or that they need to raise money. They were never commercial models before. Some of them just do not deserve to inflict their faces on the TV audience.

I hope that Comelec will duly consider my request, and thereafter issue a resolution so that it can define for us the crime of premature campaigning. It is penalized in the Election Code. All of these arguments made by these candidates concerned are in direct conflict with a specific provision of the Election Code, which it is illegal to campaign directly or indirectly to solicit votes or support for his or her candidacy. There is a specific provision that prohibits a premature campaign even it is done indirectly, which is being done today.

So I hope with the Comelec resolution, all candidates will draw the line. Comelec just has to read the riot act to these recalcitrant candidates. I am not referring to any particular candidate. I am just discharging as a lawyer what I feel is a very humble contribution to the rule of law in our country.

Does it only cover commercial products or does it include personal advocacies?

Yes of course. There’s a time for that—that’s the campaign season. It would fall under the provision that makes it unlawful to conduct any election activity or partisan political activity.

In fact, I think out of the sense of delicadeza, politicians who are in power should appear as commercial models at any time. You can never tell whether in the future a member of Congress might be faced with a bill or some decision that might represent a conflict of interest between the commercial establishment for which he made an ad and his duties as legislator. So even without premature campaigning as an issue, I don’t think that any incumbent senator or congressman should appear endorsing any commercial product.

Not everything that is legal is moral. They should just remove those without waiting for the Comelec to issue a formal order. That order from the Comelec would humiliate them. If I were one of those candidates I would just voluntarily pull out those advertisements. If you read between the lines of the Anti-graft Law, that would be a case that a member of Congress should observe self inhibition in endorsing any commercial product because of any potential of conflict of interest.

-o0o-

28 May 2008

Chair Jose A.R. Melo
Commission on Elections
Intramuros


Dear Chair Melo:

This is to respectfully request a Comelec Resolution on the implementation of BP Blg. 881, the Omnibus Election Code of 1985, particularly Sec. 80, which makes it unlawful for any person to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity, except during the campaign period.

This prohibition against premature campaigning is blatantly circumvented at present, under any or all of the following disreputable claims:

• Since under Sec. 79 (a), “candidate” refers only to a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy, allegedly the prohibition does not apply to a person who has not yet filed the certificate.


• Since Sec. 79 (b) allows campaign acts, if performed for enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination of a political party, allegedly the prohibition does not apply.


• Since Sec. 79 last paragraph allows public expression on probable issues or on attributes of probable candidates for nomination of a political party, allegedly the prohibition does not apply.

Such claims are specious and made in bad faith, because Sec. 79 (5) specifically defines an “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” as: “Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges, or support for or against a candidate.”

I respectfully submit that it is Comelec, not Congress, which has primary jurisdiction to interpret the Election Code, under the Constitution, Article 9 (C) and Sec. 2 (1) vesting the Comelec with the power to: “Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election . . . .”

I respectfully file this request, in response to mounting media and public clamor to stop the ongoing premature campaign of certain candidates. It is unacceptable for lawmakers themselves to violate the law, by invoking deceptive technicalities to circumvent that law. I do not direct this request against any particular candidate. But as a lawyer, I merely want to make a humble contribution to the rule of law.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.)MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

24 April 2008

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’ s interview

On the proposed extension of the CARP Law

I am in favor of the CARP extension. I filed a similar counterpart bill here in the Senate and I will ask the chair of the Senate committee on agrarian reform to schedule it for public hearing, or, if it has already been heard, to submit its committee report.

We really have to extend the CARP for the reason that it has failed in its objectives. Ang tagal-tagal na ng ating CARP, pero hindi ito nakatulong sa ating mga magsasaka. Hindi rin ito nakatulong sa ating supply ng bigas.

Ang pilosopiya ng CARP ay ibigay sa magsasaka ang lupa mula mga nagmamay-ari ng lupaing agrikultural, para ang nagtatanim ay siya ring may-ari. Kabaligtaran ang nangyari dahil nakakita ang mga may-ari ng lupa ng loophole. Nag-apply sila for conversion ng lupa nila para hindi tawaging agricultural ang lupa nila para hindi mapasailalim sa CARP, at tawagin itong residential, commercial o industrial. Exempt na nga sila sa agrarian reform, kikita pa sila ng windfall profits.

Pinagbawal iyan ng ating batas, pero dahil sa graft and corruption sa agrarian reform, nagawa pa rin nila iyon. Tatanggapin na lang ba natin iyan na nagtagumpay ang mga crooks na ito sa paglinlang sa ating mamamayan tungkol sa agrarian reform. Hindi tayo nakakakamit ng tunay na repormang agraryo dahil ang mga maliliit na magsasaka ay walang pera kapag naghihintay ng ani nila, dati nanghihiram sila sa kanilang landlord. Ngayon, kapag wala na silang pera, binebenta nila ang kanilang lupa na nakuha nila sa agrarian reform. The effect is we have not given land to the landless.

Also, hindi sila kumikita sa kanilang ani dahil hindi sila binibigyan ng gobyerno ng support services gaya ng fertilizer, irrigation, at postharvest facilities. In effect, the agrarian reform program has been a big disaster to our country. Dapat ipakulong natin ang mga absentee landowners na nakakita ng palusot sa agrarian reform.

Hinihikayat ko ang Senado na imbestigahan ang Department of Agrarian Reform kung ano ang mga pangalan ng mga tao at korporasyon na nakakuha ng conversion, gaano kalawak ang lupang na-convert nila, at ano ang nangyari sa conversion nila.