Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview
24 January 2007
There is no point conducting any activity in the legislative process, unless there is a reasonable chance that within 9 days the process can be completed. Under the rules, when the new Congress comes in, it replaces entirely the old Congress, and no matter what the stage of the proceedings, a bill that is pending has to go through the entire process beginning from step one, which is we have to refile bill. In the case of the JPEPA, I might be accused of railroading the bill if I try to have voting on it—that is, to collapse the whole process—in just nine days, in competition with the other priority items in the agenda of the Senate. That is why we have mutually agreed with the Majority Leader that we shall have no JPEPA activity and leave it to the next Congress. Presumably I will still be Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. If that will be the case, the JPEPA will be the highest priority when we resume sessions in July.
I understand that it came as a reaction to the privilege speech directed against him. I do not want to see that kind of precedent because that would mean that there might be a chilling effect on senators who don’t have the physical courage to face people who are directly affected. Those senators, who deliver privilege speeches mentioning certain people in a negative sense, must take responsibility for their actions. But the provision of the Constitution is that they must be held to account before their own peers, not before the persons they are attacking. Hence, that would be a diminution of the concept of parliamentary immunity. People like that are allowed to come and debate a senator in his own office. They have to have respect, not necessarily to the senator, but to the Senate as an institution. So I am afraid that I do not approve of the visit because it could have led to more adverse consequences: they could have come to blows, etc. The only remedy there is to allege in court that the remarks were outside in the discharge of official functions. His actions might be misinterpreted as abuse of the powers of an incumbent administration. Whether administration or opposition, if the leaders are subjected to accusations or even attacks by senators, then simply they have to respect the constitutional provision on the parliamentary immunity of a senator.
I thought that it is a disproportionate use of force to carry out what may have been a lawful intent. But the means does not justify the ends. They could just have used, for example, tear gas, or they could have turned off the electricity and water. They could not have resorted to that degree of violence. -o0o-