THE CONTRACTORS

Privilege Speech on 26 January 2009)

Mr. President:

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

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

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

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

• Tagaytay-Palico Road – P104.20 M


• Road concreting Palawan – P322.20 M


• Tagaytay City Flyover – P292.94 M


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


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


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


• Iloilo East Coast – Capiz Road – P 530.59 M

Second, Cavite Ideal Construction:

• Naga-Toledo Road – P 805.6 M


• Sablayan Road, Occidental Mindoro – P 889.3 M


• Tacloban Road, Leyte – P 964 M


• C-5 flyover, Metro Manila – P 765 M


• Putlan bridge, Nueva Ecija – P 205.6 M


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


• Rehab project Echague, Isabela – P 587.9 M


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


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


• Civil works Reina Mercedes, Isabela – P 562.5 M


• Macalelon Road, Quezon – P 654.7 M


• Aritao Road, Baguio – P 1,422.4 M


• SLEX Service Road, Metro Manila – P 524.4 M


• Arterial road, South Leyte – P 829.7 M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

News Release

18 September 2007

MIRIAM: ERAP HAS TO ADMIT GUILT

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said that both pardon and amnesty will imply guilt on the part of former President Joseph Estrada, if he decides to apply for executive clemency.

Santiago, in a privilege speech last Monday, urged Estrada to apply for pardon and not amnesty, which is granted to political offenses and not to those convicted of plunder.

Santiago derided lawyers who have claimed that either pardon or amnesty does not imply guilt.
The senator said that in the 1965 case of People v Pasilan, the Supreme Court ruled: “Availing of the benefits granted by the amnesty proclamation would be inconsistent with the plea of not guilty which appellant entered upon for arraignment. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when the accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot avail himself of amnesty.”

She also cited the 1989 case of Monsanto v Factoran, Jr., where the Supreme Court ruled: “Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof.”

Santiago added that the Monsanto ruling was repeated in the later 1993 case of Garcia v Chairman, Commission on Audit.

“The latest cases show that both amnesty and pardon imply guilt on the part of the applicant. President Estrada should be so advised, in order to avoid injustice to him,” Santiago said.

The senator said that Estrada would not qualify for amnesty, because it is only granted for a political offense, which she defined as “an ideologically motivated act, expressing political opposition, directed against the security of the state.”

Santiago said that the “paradigmatic political offenses” are coup d’etat, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and treason.

During interpellation by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Santiago said that the grant of executive clemency to the former President would bring closure to the issue which has divided the nation for the six years that trial was pending in the Sandiganbayan.

Also in answer to the younger Estrada’s question, Santiago said that an appeal to the Supreme Court will take at least two years to decide, while a motion for new trial with the Sandigan, if granted, would result in a completely new trial which could take another six years.

“In the meantime, Pres. Estrada and his supporters will continue to suffer mental anguish, and the nation will remain in political distress,” Santiago said.

When Sen. Estrada asked if there was any other remedy available to his father other than pardon or amnesty which would not imply an admission of guilt, Santiago said there is none, except the judicial remedies such as motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or appeal to the Supreme Court.

She cited the principle that even if the law proves to be harsh, it is the law and therefore must be obeyed: dura lex, sed lex.

Santiago ended with a sarcastic note: “I believe that all the talkative people who have either been advising or speaking for Pres. Estrada should do him the justice of full legal research.”

-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-