Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's Interview
29 January 2007
On political turncoatism
It depends on what they turn coat for, if it is just political convenience that would be a legitimate cause for concern on the part of the electorate. But if there is an undercurrect of ideology or principle then the person cannot be blamed because there are now ideological divides among our political parties. In my case for example, I always tend to side with a sitting president because of my background in law. I always insist that all legal measures must be scrupulously observed and I worry about our national economy every time there is an unseasonal change of president outside of a regular election. The economy immediately slides and the persons who ultimately foot the bill are always the poor. So, in that case, whoever is the incumbent president, regardless weather he calls himself administration or opposition. I will tend to side with the person until the expiration of the term.
On the “bidding war” between administration and opposition for Senatorial candidates
(For the parties, the question they ask to the candidates is) how much are we going to give you for your campaign funds? And How much does a candidate believe will be given to him because a promise and reality is often far apart in politics. They promise you, “run with us and we’ll give you ten million and you get one million down payment that’s all you’ll ever receive for the entire campaign.” This is actually a bidding war (of) who can promise the most money, and then it becomes a question of how far the candidate is willing to trust the word of the political advisers.
On the administration working on a “Unity Ticket”
They are working from the same pool of potential candidates, both the opposition and the administration. Politicians keep both lights open until the very last minute and the money is in the hand. Well, what the senatorials want to hear is that they will be promised 50 million independently of party expenses like travel, lodging, and other campaign expenses. That can be promised, but will that promised can be delivered upon is a question because of the experience in the past of each of these candidates.
(Who is in the capacity to give such amount?) The administration, naturally, because the campaign contributors are always inclined to give more. Any intelligent campaign contributor will give to both major sides at the very least or to both sides if there are more than two. It depends on how much it thinks is deserved, who has the better chances of winning. So that’s just politics.
I spent 50 million last time for my presidential campaign. And that was not enough because that time in 1992 people who were running for municipal mayor told me that 50 million was not enough. It has never gone beyond 50 million. That was all my campaign contributors were willing to give me. Today, for senator that is the basic minimum they hope to hear about. But they know that to get a competitive edge they have to buy more, they have to buy votes for sale. They no longer buy votes individually or by barangay or stealing the ballot box. You buy a syndicate within the COMELEC so that all they do is change the numbers in the provincial certificates. So you buy wholesale now; if you don’t buy wholesale you don’t win a senator. That was my experience in the last senatorial elections. I was always at least number two at the polls. In the final analysis, after election day, I was only number seven because I refused to deal with the syndicates and I didn’t have the money. So everyone else bought their own. They have connections in the COMELEC. They have access to provincial certificates that have to be sent to Manila. That’s why 50 million is not enough for a senator of he is not really very popular. So, I tell you the number one senator is said to have spent 700 to 800 million. -o0o-