Transcript of Sen. Santiago’s Interview

19 January 2009

On her chronic fatigue syndrome

It is actually the long term effect of the assassination attempt in 1992. We never revealed it because my campaign managers said that it will be used against me, people will claim that I am already mentally and physically incapacitated. But now I have to say it because media might speculate on why I am not present in certain occasions.

I was on a car on a Sunday morning going to a speaking engagement up north in a campus. All of a sudden a military jeep came running towards us at high speed and changed lanes so that he will deliberately hit the back of my car where I was seated. I was almost dead on arrival. It was never revealed to the media. I know it was an assassination attempt because immediately the next day, anticipating public response and sympathy, there was an alleged letter to the editor from Tarlac (I was at Tarlac at that time) that I had made the whole thing up just to win sympathy. People went to my hospital room in Tondo in Metropolitan Hospital and they can see for themselves that I could not even talk and that I have swollen to about five times my normal size because of all the bruises that I have suffered. My sister who is cardiologist in Cedar Sinai in Los Angeles said that because of my inherent heart condition—two of my younger brothers died of heart attack—I would be suffering Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. And I did.

Who do you think was behind this?

Ramos, very clearly. I have always maintained that. He was at that time the candidate of the administration. I did file a criminal complaint for frustrated murder against the driver of the jeep to the fiscal in Tarlac and he immediately dismissed it because of course he wanted to earn brownie points with the administration.

On the Baselines Bill

I have already made contingency plans. Sen. Pimentel can defend it. But basically what we are doing is we are just complying with the archipelagic doctrine, that is to say we draw our line that encloses all our islands. We have not included the controversial Spratly Islands as part of our archipelago, and that diffuses the tension that has been generated by China and the other claimants of the Spratly Islands . They have protested some of the versions that enclosed the islands within our archipelago. To sidestep the opposition from other states, we have instead adopted in the foreign relations committee a version that puts the Spratly Islands outside of our archipelagic domain but considers them a regime of islands belonging to the Philippines.

What that means is that each island will have its own base point for measuring such things as the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, and so on. Since all of these areas of jurisdiction in international maritime law, I found that these areas of jurisdiction of the Spratly Islands within the baselines from which we start measuring. They will have their own. In effect, we will not be expanding the maritime jurisdiction so much that the other countries will begin to complain because we overlapped with their exclusive economic zone or their continental shelf, for example.

What we have done is we preserved our archipelago, we have preserved our relations with Thailand , Vietnam , and other states, and at the same time, we preserved our claim to the Spratly Islands . We leave that to the negotiations to the next UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. I will deliver the sponsorship speech on Monday.

On Puno as a presidential bet

That is a poison chalice. They are offering a cup of life-giving water to a person who needs it, but, unknown to him and you both, it is toxic.

We already saw that when former Justice Marcelo Fernan aired his plans to run for president he met immediately a very stiff wall of resistance from the political parties and other political leaders. Because he was so disappointed, eventually he made up his mind and ran for senator and he won. He even became senate president.

I know from somebody intimate with the Chief Justice that, as a scholar of the law like me, he has an attitude problem. I have an attitude problem so I put myself in his shoes. I think he has an attitude problem because an academician will take two lifetimes to adjust to a politician’s life. I think—if I may be so bold to put words in his mouth—he absolutely detests the political lifestyle.

There are three things you have to comply with: one, money; two, money; and three, money. I happen to believe that Chief Justices are honest public servants even from the beginning, so where is he going to get at least three billion pesos? You can’t raise three billion; it’s only money that makes money. If you don’t start with anything at all, you can’t hope to raise that much. He will have no money. He has no party. That party that offered its facilities to him is a nonexistent party and exists only in the media if you consider it in conventional terms.

And it creates a problem with jurisprudence because you have a question of the chief of one branch of government crossing over to another branch of government in the light of the fact that the executive is considered a political branch and the judiciary is a nonpolitical branch. What will then happen to the nonpolitical nature of the judiciary if its justices took it into their heads to prepare the way for a possible presidential campaign? So there is just too much complication, foremost of them is that the Chief Justice will never allow himself to be carried away by these intimations of temporary popularity.

The reason why the Supreme Court is low in public approval is that the Chief Justice is a very self-effacing man. He does not like to talk about himself, much less about his ambitions. So there is no hope. That is hopeless. That is a hopeless cause.

I think this is one of the most corrupt governments in the world. I think more of us will agree to that. Not only government—this is a very corrupt society. And the Chief Justice is correct in denouncing it. However, to create a denunciation into a springboard for a political career is highly dangerous. It might even be terminal.

I am not discouraging him. In fact if he will run I will vote for him. But it has no relation to reality. These are just people spinning their wheels. And he is too smart not to know what is being done to him.

Who is urging him to run?

People who might be his friends now, but they would not be real friends. No true friend will ever induce any person to enter Philippine politics in its present complexion. For the chief justice to enter politics is tantamount to expressing a death wish.

MIRIAM WARNS RP WATERS IN PERIL

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned “alarmists in Congress” to stop pushing for a new baseline bill without expert advice, because the Philippines “would virtually lose sovereignty over our internal waters.”

“These alarmists will unwittingly turn over our internal waters to foreigners,” said Santiago, reacting to weekend news that some senators want a new baseline bill to be passed, without consulting international law experts.

Under the Philippine Constitution, Article 1, the internal waters are “the waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago.”

Santiago said that the move to pass immediately the baseline bill would be “a case of the blind leading the blind,” because RP internal waters would be transformed into “archipelagic waters” under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

She said that the “archipelagic waters” concept would allow foreigners to enjoy many rights inside Philippine territory such as: right of archipelagic sea lanes passage; right of innocent passage; traditional fishing rights by neighboring states; and right to repair or replace existing submarine cables laid by foreign states.

“Alarmists should understand that the right of innocent passage given to foreign vessels include the right of navigation and overflight, not only for foreign commercial vessels, but also for foreign military vessels and aircraft. Can we handle that?” Santiago said.

Santiago, also a constitutional law expert, said that Unclos conflicts with the Philippine Constitution, not only because of the archipelagic waters concept, but also because Unclos would severely limit Philippine sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

The Constitution, Article 12 Sec. 2 Paragraph 2 provides: “The state shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”

Santaigo said that under Unclos, this constitutional provision will become invalid, because Unclos provides that when RP does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, RP should “give other states access to the surplus of the allowable catch.”

“In other words, instead of reserving the EEZ exclusively to Filipinos, RP has to allow foreigners to fish in the EEZ. Thus, the Supreme Court will certainly declare Unclos as unconstitutional. And then the foreign state may sue RP for violation of Unclos before a foreign tribunal,” said Santiago, the Senate’s recognized expert in international law.

The baseline of the Philippine archipelago consists of straight lines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands.

The baseline is the starting point for computing the area of the 12-mile territorial sea, 24-mile contiguous zone, 200-mile exclusive economic zone, and the 200-mile continental shelf.

The Philippines needs a new baseline bill, in order to compute the area of the extended continental shelf (ECS), which can be up to 350 miles.

The deadline for filing a claim for ECS with the United Nations is 13 May 2009.

“Since we have one year to meet the deadline, why do we need to rush the baseline bill? First, we should create a Congressional Commission on National Territory, so that we can use as background material the report and recommendations of international law experts,” Santiago said.

Santiago said it was “grave error” for certain quarters to push for a baseline bill first, and then to create the commission later.

“That is putting the cart before the horse. International law is radically different from domestic law. There are only two international law experts in the Philippines. They are Justice Florentino Feliciano and Dean Merlin Magallona. All others are self-proclaimed,” said Santiago, herself listed as an international law expert by the United Nations.

Santiago said that experts have to decide whether the Philippines is a party to the Unclos.

The senator said that when during martial law the Philippines ratified the Unclos, it made an impermissible reservation to fix the limits of the Philippine territorial sea under the 1898 Paris Treaty.

Under the Vienna Convention, Art. 19, when a treaty prohibits any reservation, and a state ratifies the treaty but makes an impermissible reservation, that state is not a valid party to the treaty.

“Before we rush to a baseline bill, lawmakers should first have the benefit of advice from international law experts. Otherwise, to a great extent, we lose our sovereignty over our own internal waters. That would be anomalous, because our archipelago will become an open maritime highway. Filipino fishermen will have to compete in our own waters with foreign fishermen,” she said.

Santiago said that if Congress votes to defer the creation of the congressional commission and to pass a baseline bill first, she would refuse to defend the baseline bill.

“I cannot defend a bill that will turn over our internal waters to foreigners, and run the high risk of being declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” said Santiago, who is also a constitutional law expert.

Santiago said the Senate Rules prohibits senators who voted in favor of a committee report, to change their minds and oppose the bill in plenary session.

The committee report recommending that the commission should first be created and its report submitted, before the Senate discusses the new baseline bill, was signed by 14 senators.

“The point that the order of priority should be reversed has become moot and academic, because this particular committee report to create the commission has already been passed by a majority of senators,” Santiago said.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

On Congress possibly investigating Meralco’s high power rates

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

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

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

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

What will be the objectives of the hearings?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIRIAM URGES SPRATLYS PROTEST VS. TAIWAN

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, urged foreign affairs Sec. Alberto Romulo to send a note to Taiwan , through its Manila Economic and Cultural Office, to halt the proposed visit next week to the Spratly islands by Taiwan ’s defense chief and a group of legislators.

“The Philippines has good grounds to protest because it is a provocative act for Taiwan officials to visit their newly constructed airstrip on Taiping island in the Spratly chain,” the senator said.
Santiago said that the Taiwan visit to the Spratlys will violate the 2002 China-Asean Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea .

“Even if Taiwan is not a party to this Declaration, it has most likely evolved into regional customary international law, since it was signed six years ago by nine countries: China , Brunei , Cambodia , Indonesia , Malaysia , Myanmar , Philippines , Singapore , and Thailand . As customary international law, the Declaration binds all states in the Asian region, including non-parties,” she said.

Santiago explained that Taiwan was not invited to sign the Declaration, because China claims sovereignty over Taiwan , and China has insisted on a one-China policy in the United Nations.
The Declaration states “that the parties are committed to exploring ways for bringing trust and confidence on the basis of equality and mutual respect.”
The Declaration also commits the parties to “the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea, as provided for by international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

“The Taiwan airstrip jeopardizes the freedom of overflight above the Spratly chain. It is a provocative act and the Taiwanese visit there will add to the provocation. I hope that the foreign affairs department would be able to bring this controversy to the attention of President-elect Ma Ying-Jeou, before he takes office on May 20,” the senator said.

The Declaration binds the parties to exercise restraint and to hold dialogues and exchange of views between their defense and military officials.

“In our protest note, we should instead recommend that there should be dialogues between the Philippine defense secretary and armed forces chief of staff with their Taiwanese counterparts,” Santiago said.

-End-

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago ’s interview

On the Commission on National Territory

Present in the Joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs, and National Defense and Security were Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Rodolfo Biazon, and Juan Ponce Enrile. The panel of guests consisted of Prof. Merlin M. Magallona of the UP College of Law ; DFA Usec. Rafael Seguis for Special and Ocean Concern; Atty. Henry Bensurto, Secretary General of the Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs; Usec. Milo S. Ibrado of the National Security Council; and Mr. Diony Ventura , Administrator of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority [DENR-NAMRIA]

We have reached a consensus in this committee hearing, both among the senators and members of the resource panel, that before we even try to discuss the pending bills about the archipelagic baselines in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, we must discuss the matter very carefully because it has many unintended consequences. It is not as if we never declared our claim to ownership over the Kalayaan Island Group. This has been done since 1978. So the international community cannot say that we have waived our rights over there, or that by our mere silence we have consented to ownership by other countries.

However, the point today is that if we include the KIG in our definition in our archipelagic baselines, that would be considered 1) a violation of international law since the drawing of baselines has never been an accepted method in acquiring territory. There are other methods like occupation, conquest, or cession. So if we include the disputed KIG and the Spratlys just by drawing archipelagic baselines we would already be violating international law.

Number two, we would also be violating the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea which concerns the disputed KIG. In 2002, all the claimant countries agreed that they would simply observe the status quo, and not use force or threat of force in implementing their claims of ownership and sovereignty over these islands, but they would instead settle all their territorial disputes by means of negotiation and mediation, and that they would observe utmost self-restraint. So if we draw our baselines, and by that means try and claim ownership over the islands by including them within our baselines, that would be considered as an offensive act by our co-parties to the 2002 declaration. It would naturally be a source of irritants between our country and with China and other claimant countries.

During the hearing, we gave some examples of how complex the problem is if we declare ourselves as an archipelagic state. That is different from simply being an archipelago. An archipelago is a geological state. But if you declare yourself as an archipelagic state under the UNCLOS, then in the case of the Philippines , our territorial seas will immediately shrink by miles. In that case the waters around, between, and connecting out islands will no longer be our internal waters over which we have complete sovereignty. They would become archipelagic waters of which there would be a right of innocent passage by foreign vessels. There would be a right of archipelagic sealanes passage also by foreign vessels, perhaps of a military nature. We would have to allow in our archipelagic waters our immediate neighbors to continue to fish, if that was their practice before. So we suffer a lot of inhibitions and restrictions if we declare ourselves an archipelagic state by drawing our archipelagic baselines.

For that reason, since we don’t have the expertise to handle all these legal niceties, plus the scientific and technical knowledge to be able to draw the maps properly. Both the resource panel and the two committees decided to file a committee report to the Senate plenary session to establish a Joint Commission on National Territory. There is a counterpart resolution in the House, so if the two chambers concur, then all it needs is the signature of the President.

The only problem now is whether the Office of Maritime and Ocean Affairs of the Office of the President support the establishment of the Commission or will instead claim that the Commission should operate under them. In other words, should we have a Commission on National Territory that is legislative in character as I have proposed, or should it be executive in character. Even if it becomes an executive agency, I have no strong objection. I just want a complete, scientific, and scholarly study and analysis of the impact of the archipelagic doctrine on our national territory.

On the JPEPA

The senators are asking for time to study the full committee report. In this case, the senators told me that they find it hard to understand the resolution and its annexes. I don’t blame them because it is so technical. That is why, in anticipation, I already told my secondary chair that each of us should prepare a bound volume. Mine was finished. I thought that I would publish one volume combining the work of the two committees. Mine was thick, but his was even thicker. So we have to issue two volumes next week, and I will not sponsor it yet because the senators find it a very strange and new territory for them.

Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

On the baselines bills

I believe that the archipelagic baselines bills filed in both chambers of Congress were sincerely intended and crafted out of intellectual honesty. I won’t say anything derogatory to the authors of the bills, except that they separately treat the archipelagic problem, particularly what are the boundaries of our national territory in a piecemeal manner. They pick certain provisions from the UNCLOS and then they try to apply it in their bills. You can’t do that.

The Philippines is a geographical archipelago, but if it makes a declaration that it is an archipelagic state, immediately we lose our rights to our internal waters. They will become in effect a highway for foreign vessels. Secondly, we would lose our right to protect our local fishermen from poaching of foreign vessels. These are just examples. There are many consequences of a declaration of an archipelagic state.

So first we must talk to the experts, meaning the scientists familiar with the measurements of the maritime boundaries. And we must talk with the legal experts, if possible officials in the foreign affairs connected with the negotiation of the UNCLOS.

I am not necessarily against those bills but I think it is premature to act on them at this time since the bills happen to include the Kalayaan Island Group and other disputed islands within the baselines.

Even the international limits in the Treaty of Paris do not include those disputed islands within our territorial boundaries. In doing so, the bills constitute a violation or at least a disregard of the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. That could be considered an offensive act of aggression by China.

On some senators on the doubting the legality of JPEPA’s conditional concurrence

I simply have to educate them. They are afraid because they don’t know about it. Fear is usually the result of ignorance. They’ve never had any experience with it. But in the United States , they have been practicing it since the 19th century and nobody has ever objected. The United States has entered into treaties with the world’s greatest powers, especially with Russia during the Cold War, and Russia never objected.

I know that a colleague has issued a press release, which I view as entirely unfortunate. He has fallen into the trap a freshman normally would. When you read for example the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, you have to be aware that the Vienna Convention is not a codification of general international law. It is not as if you are reading the Revised Penal Code, that if you don’t find it there, then it is not allowed by law. That is not the case with an international treaty particularly when it is multilateral in nature.

In any event, this is a very technical matter and I would be happy to educate my colleagues at this point. I think it is unfortunate to muddy the waters this early. The only question here is can we explain why Jpepa is advantageous to the Philippines during the plenary debate. Thereafter, we can proceed with subsidiary question of its procedural niceties.