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

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.

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 TO OMBUDSMAN: PROBE MELAMINE SMUGGLING

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, vice-chair of the Senate finance committee, asked Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to investigate alleged smuggling of melamine-laced milk from China , and file the proper charges against officials responsible.

“That is part of the Ombudsman’s function of general investigation and monitoring,” she said.

Santiago said that in particular, the Ombudsman should investigate the “apparent complicity or incompetence” of the customs deputy commissioner for enforcement, the chief of the intelligence and investigation services, and the chief of the national customs police.

Santiago issued the instructions during the public hearing on the budget yesterday morning.

She also directed the Ombudsman to provide her with a list of high government officials or highly publicized public figures who have been charged, investigated, and prosecuted.

In the same hearing, Santiago asked Commissioner on Human Rights Leila de Lima to account for cash advances of some P23 million which were unliquidated as of 31 December 2007.

De Lima said that the cash advances included foreign travel, including 12 foreign trips last 2007 by former Com. Purificacion Quisumbing.

Santiago also questioned why there is a provision in the CHR budget of P7 million for subsidies and donations both in 2007 and 2008.

At the same hearing, Santiago asked ARMM Gov. Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan to account for unliquidated cash advances, including: P269 million in Basilan; P152 million in Sulu, P800,000 in Lanao del Sur, P31.6 million for Tawi-Tawi; and P78 million in Marawi City.

She asked the ARMM governor to furnish a complete physical inventory of plants, properties, and equipment in connection with which P242 million remains unaccounted for.

Santiago also pointed out that contrary to law, no public bidding was made for office supplies and equipment amounting to P52 million in Lanao del Sur, and amounting to P800 million in Marawi City .

The senator sid that ARMM schools remained the “worst performers” in the National Achievement Test for Grade 6 pupils, and asked the ARMM governor to arrange for construction of new classrooms.

MIRIAM HITS JUDGE FOR P1B UNPAID COMELEC FUNDS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago questioned a Makati RTC judge for giving due course to a petition which will delay the payment of some P1 billion to the Comelec.

At the Comelec budget hearing, Santiago learned that Judge Winlove Dumayas has given due course to a petition from Mega-Pacific eSolutions, Inc. which will delay refund to the Comelec of some P1 billion, or the rejection of automated counting machines.

“The Supreme Court decision has become final and executory. It is unusual for a mere trial judge in effect to grant a motion for reconsideration from a Supreme Court decision which has already become final,” she said.

Santiago directed Comelec Chair Jose Melo to take legal steps to collect some P260 million from Philippine MultiMedia Systems, for a similarly voided contract.

“People who appeared to have defrauded the Comelec in effect are getting away with Comelec money, which the courts have rendered final and executory. Those suppliers must be very influential,” she said.

At the same budget hearing, Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. said that the CA received 17 to 20 applications for the writ of amparo, and granted only one to two applications.

Vasquez also said that only one application for writ of habeas data was filed, which was included in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and writ of amparo.

“It appears either that the public are not yet fully aware that these two new writs are available, or that the applications are unmeritorious,” Santiago said.

MIRIAM TO SC: REPLACE BAR WITH ADMISSION TEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIRIAM: 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.

MIRIAM: BUDGET INSERTS VIOLATE CHARTER

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago slammed as unconstitutional the practice of amending the budget by means of secret closed-door sessions of the bicameral conference committee.

Santiago , a constitutional law expert and former UP constitutional law professor, cited the 1994 case of Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, where the Supreme Court was badly divided on the issue of budgetary insertions.

However, she said that the majority vote does not constitute binding precedent, because the ratio decidendi (or reason for deciding the case) was not about congressional insertions, but about the VAT.

“Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who was then an associate justice, said in his dissent that the bicameral conference committee does not have the power to add or delete provisions in a budget already approved on third reading by both Houses. He said that the bicam does not have an ex post veto power,” Santiago said.

If a case to question the constitutionality of secret budget insertions would be brought today, Santiago predicted that Chief Justice Puno would rule that such secret inserts are unconstitutional.

“In his dissent, the Chief Justice said that there is no constitutional provision, law, rule, or regulation that allows congressional insertions. I respectfully concur with this statement,” she said.

Santiago said that Puno also observed that the secret additions and deletions are not submitted separately for approval in the plenary session. Instead, they are “hidden” in the entire budget.

“Many of my colleagues in Congress claim that congressional insertions constitute a legislative custom. Granting for the sake of argument that it is a legislative custom, still it must follow the hierarchy of sources of legislative rules of procedure,” she said.

Santiago said the principal sources of procedural rules are followed in the following order: Constitution, law, rules, judicial decisions, parliamentary authority, parliamentary law, customs and usages.

Santiago said the best authority on the unconstitutionality of congressional insertions is the dissent by then Justice Hilario Davide, who ruled that the duty of the bicam is limited to the reconciliation of disagreeing provisions.

Santiago also cited the dissent of her former UP law professor, retired Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, who cited the parliamentary authority Jefferson’s Manual, stating that the bicam must confine themselves to the differences in the House and Senate versions.

“The conference committee is transformed into an all-powerful Frankenstein that brooks no challenge to its authority, even from its own members. Their power lies chiefly in the fact that reports of conference committees must be accepted with the amendments or else rejected in toto,” Santiago quoted from the Romero dissent.

Santiago said Romero ruled that congressional insertions transfer the lawmaking power to a small group of members who work out in private a decision that usually prevails.

“Insertion of new matter on the part of the bicam is, therefore, an ultra vires act which makes the same void,” Santiago quoted the Romero decision.

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.

MIRIAM: EXPOSE BUDGET INSERTS

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, in a privilege speech yesterday, said that it is unconstitutional for Congress to keep secret the budget process, thus leading to abuses of authority during the bicameral conference.

“All decisions made by the bicameral conference should be printed and circulated to members of both houses of Congress three days before the panel’s ratification of the bicameral committee report,” she said.

Santiago said the bicameral committee members often abuse their authority.

“With the budget, the bicam not only reconciles the differences between the House and the Senate versions. Under the most secretive conditions, the conference introduces budget items that did not exist in any version,” she said.

Santiago said that to make the budget process transparent, the bicam should be limited to reconciling the disagreeing provisions of the House and the Senate versions.

“No new budget programs, projects, and activities should be introduced during the process of budget reconciliation,” she said.

Santiago urged the media to expose all congressional initiatives every year- end, listing the legislators, the public works projects, and the amounts.

“Even I, a senator no less, was refused by the Legislative Budget Review and Monitoring Office (LBRMO) when I asked for such a list yesterday,” she said.

Santiago said refusal to give her the information violates the “constitutionally protected right of the public to information on matters of public concern.”

Santiago said it was the second time that the LBRMO refused to give her information, the first having been her request for the names of senators, if any, who have returned to the Senate at yearend any excess money from their Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).

In her first year as senator in 1996, Santiago returned her excess fund, but was severely criticized by her then colleagues in the Senate for alleged breach of confidentiality.

“Congressional insertions are part of the amendment process of the budget, but like pork barrel funds, they should be revealed to the public with respect to recipients and amounts,” she said.

Santiago also urged the two finance chairs – Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Rep. Edcel Lagman – to ensure that the budget indicates if an appropriation is part of a multi-year “installment plan.”

“For example, if the C-5 extension project really costs P 4 billion to be paid in annual installments, then every appropriation should be marked as ‘Installment 1,’ and so on. That way, we shall avoid public suspicion of an improper double entry,” she said.

Santiago said that Senate Pres. Manny Villar was not necessarily culpable, if he requested the congressional insertion of another P200 million for the same project that had already been given the same amount in another page.

“It appears that there were double entries, because the first entry was one installment, and the second entry was another installment on the total amount appropriated for the same project,” she said.

Santiago proposed that the Senate President and the Speaker should agree on a policy of self-restraint and public disclosure, by adopting the policy of notifying each legislator that each one is entitled to a congressional insertion uniformly limited in amount.

“Congressional insertions are objectionable, because they are done secretly, and some senators get more money than others, while others do not even ask for anything at all,” she said.

Santiago was one of few senators named by Sen. Enrile as those who did not make any congressional insertions for the 2005 budget.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

5 October 2007

On Administrative Order 197

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

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

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

On the Comelec budget

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

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

On the CHR budget

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

On the ARMM budget

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

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

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

News Release

18 September 2007

MIRIAM: WHO’S FUNDING JOEY?

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that Jose de Venecia III, the accuser in the controversial NBN (National Broadband Network) deal, has to explain what group he is representing, and said she suspects that it is not only his own corporation, AHI (Amsterdam Holdings, Inc.), which lost in the bidding.

“He lost the bid, but he is not even trying for a rebidding. Instead, he is spraying automatic gunfire on the First Gentleman, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo, Comelec Commissioner Benjamin Abalos, and DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza. This is exceedingly strange,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that she “smells a plot” intended to scandalize President Arroyo, and to create intrigue between her and Jose de Venecia, Jr., Speaker of the House and father of the accuser.

“The political noise has reached a very high decibel level. Producing that kind of noise is very expensive. So where is the money coming from?” she said.

Santiago said that it is possible that the accuser, Joey de Venecia is funded by a group that wants to oust President Arroyo before 2010 and to install someone else.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that he who alleges must prove. We have to conduct a background check on the accuser. Like a good detective story, the Senate hearings should be able to determine what his motive is, and who is funding him, if any,” the senator said.

On the alleged participation in the transaction by the First Gentleman, Santiago said that if it is not satisfactorily explained, it might be difficult to get Senate approval on the 2008 budget on which the Senate is already conducting public hearings.

“That’s got to be the shocker of the month. Someone is telling a very big lie. Which party is peddling the lie will hold the key to Senate approval of the loan,” she said.

Santiago, Senate finance committee vice-chair, said that the NBN project can be completed only with congressional approval through next year’s budget.

“The public officials involved should stop acting as if this were a done deal. It is not, and it is Congress which will have final say,” she said.

Santiago explained that congressional approval is necessary, since the NBN project would create a future debt for the country, which would require payment by the national treasury.
Santiago said that there are five steps that should be taken for the project to be considered completed.

First, the budget department has to issue a FOA, meaning Forward Obligational Authority.

Second, the Office of the President has to issue full powers to the finance department.

Third, the finance department, on behalf of the Philippine government, has to enter into the loan agreement.

Fourth, the Monetary Board has to approve the loan.

Fifth and finally, Congress has to approve the loan through the 2008 budget or the Annual Appropriations Act, in the exercise of the constitutional power to approve the budget prepared by the Office of the President.

Santiago said that her finance subcommittee will conduct a public hearing on the budget for the Office of the President this Friday, September 21, and she will ask the Malacañang representative if the proposed budget includes anticipated payments for the foreign debt that the NBN loan will involve.

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

5 December 2006
From Inq7.net

SANTIAGO SLAMS JBC, SC AFTER BEING DROPPED FROM SHORTLIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Is that so?” she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-o0o-

The Senator in the News

28 November 2006
From Inq7.net

SENATORS TO GIVE UP PORK IF ARROYO YIELDS DISCRETIONARY FUND

By Juliet Labog-Javellana
Posted date: November 27, 2006

SENATORS were amenable to the abolition of their pork barrel if President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would forego the multibillion-peso fund at her disposal, Senate President Manuel Villar said on Monday.

“In fact, we prefer if there is no more pork barrel for everyone but this should include the President,” Villar said in an RMN radio interview.

But for the meantime, the Senate has slashed the P9.1 billion addition to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), more popularly known as the pork barrel, which the House of Representatives inserted in the proposed P1.126-trillion national budget for 2007.

The pork barrel finances the pet projects of legislators. Though the money is not directly released to senators and members of the House, the pork barrel is believed to be a source of kickbacks for lawmakers. The kickbacks come from contractors who bag the projects.

The P9.1 billion in the PDAF approved by the House was an increase over the P6.2 billion set aside for the fund by Malacañang when it submitted its proposed budget to the House.

A fuming Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago took to the Senate floor on Monday to denounce the House of Representatives for defending its “unconstitutional” act of increasing the P1.26-trillion budget for 2007.

Santiago, irked by the statement of Representative Jose Ma. Salceda, House appropriations committee chair, that she had gotten it wrong, said the increases made by the House were not only against the Constitution but were also fueled by greed and corruption.

She said the 17.3-percent increase the House gave itself was proof of the House’s “insatiable” appetite [for pork].

Last week, the senator accused the House of bloating the budget by over P8 billion, citing the “mind-numbing” increases in various departments.

Villar and Senator Panfilo Lacson raised the need to abolish the pork barrel after Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr. said over the weekend that Malacañang had the discretion to release the fund to selected senators and members of the House.

This came after Lacson said no more than five Malacañang-friendly senators were able to get half of their P200 million in individual pork last year. He also said Malacañang should explain where some P4 billion in unreleased pork fund for this year went.

It is hard to determine how much pork barrel the President has, considering that the entire budget is deemed at her disposal, according to Senator Franklin Drilon, chair of the Senate finance committee.

But he said he would try to find out when he prepares the final committee report on the 2007 budget, which is being deliberated upon in the Senate. The Senate finance committee approved the Palace-proposed P6.2 billion for PDAF.

Pork barrel becomes a headache for senators because they are besieged with requests from congressmen, governors, other local officials, schools and universities, hospitals and nongovernment organizations looking for funding for their projects that do not receive government support, according to Villar.

“At least if they know we do not have the pork barrel, nobody will come to us,” he said.

“But the problem is where will (all that money) go? All of that money in the budget now will go to the President.”

Of the P6.2 billion in the PDAF this year, Malacañang has released only P2.3 billion, according to Drilon.

Villar confirmed that most of the senators had not been able to avail themselves of their pork share. “To be fair to senators, they have not stopped working even if they do not have (the pork),” he said.

But he disagreed with the advice of Senate President Pro Tempore Juan Flavier that senators butter up the President to get their share.

“That is also possible because there are hospitals who are asking for help but a majority of senators are not like that and we do not go to Malacañang to ask for that,” Villar said.

Drilon echoed Villar’s sentiment, saying he would not butter up the Palace just to get his pork. Drilon has not been able to get a single centavo of his pork barrel since he called for the President’s resignation in July 2005.

“Let’s face it -- Malacañang uses it as a political tool for its allies,” Drilon said.

-o0o-

Breaking News

27 November 2006

MIRIAM HITS GRAFT BEHIND BUDGET INCREASES

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that corruption is the reason for budget increases made by legislators, despite a constitution prohibition.

“If we condone the annual habit of increasing budgetary appropriations recommended by the President, this creates an opportunity for corruption,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that in practice, a group of legislators may offer a department secretary an increase in the budget of his department by, for example, 50 percent. But she explained that the budget increase is agreed upon, on the understanding that part of the increase will be allocated to some of the pet projects of the legislators responsible for the increase.

“The Constitution explicitly provides that Congress may not increase the President’s appropriations in the budget. This means two things. The first is that Congress is prohibited from increasing the total new appropriations. The second is that congress is prohibited from increasing the new appropriation for each agency,” she said.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, gave two reasons for her charter interpretation.

First, when Congress adds to the appropriations for a department, it creates incentives for waste and corruption. Second, the President, as chief executive, knows exactly how much resources are needed to run the government, and Congress should respect her wisdom,” she said.

-o0o-