Transcript of today’s media interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago
19 September 2007On the decision of President Arroyo to allow executive officials to appear before Senate hearings:
As a lawyer and a senator, I commend the President for allowing her cabinet members and other high executive officials to appear and honor the invitation or the subpoena from the respective Senate committees that are presently holding investigations on certain transactions by the Executive allegedly participated in by certain executive officials. This is in keeping with the trend in the Supreme Court to expand the power of Congress to conduct legislative enquiries that are in aid of legislation. It was in a series of cases last year where the Supreme Court made the power broader on the ground that the right to hold legislative investigations in aid of legislation is constitutionally protected. The right is specifically provided for in our Constitution. Therefore, all the powers that are needed for the efficient discharge of this constitutional duty should be granted to the Senate. What for is our power to investigate if we subpoena people and they wouldn’t come and will be considered excused. We should have the coercive power to cite for contempt. And we should have the power to call any person and to compel that person to testify before us. If his testimony is irrelevant, then we can judge for ourselves, but he must come first. He cannot interpret the relevance or materiality of his testimony by himself. He has to allow the Senate to pass on that. In the same way that no public official can claim executive privilege, and expect the Senate to accept it. We also have the power in the Senate to pass upon the question of whether executive privilege is being properly invoked or not. All of these actions by President Arroyo are consonant with Supreme Court decisions, the first of which is Senate v. Ermita, where the Supreme Court said that there can be no blanket invocation of executive privilege, each claim must be explained in full to the Senate. The second is Gudani v. Senga, where the Supreme Court said that even military officers cannot claim to be obeying the prohibition of the President, as commander-in-chief, to appear before the Senate. Even the military power of the President must yield to the power of legislative inquiry by the Senate. In Sabio v. Gordon, the Supreme Court said that even though a case was pending in the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the officials subpoenaed by the Senate must appear before the Senate. There is an implication that even though a case is pending before a judicial tribunal, the Senate still has the power to compel persons to testify about those pending cases. They cannot use as an excuse the doctrine of sub judice. This is a welcome development. I am sure that the senators will appreciate the President’s cooperative attitude.
On the First Gentleman being subpoenaed by the Senate:
We are bound by the doctrine of interdepartmental comity. This means that we have to be courteous of each other because there are three branches (of government), and each branch is equal to and independent of each other. If we in the Senate invite or even subpoena the First Gentleman, he should, as a matter of courtesy, appear and explain why his testimony is not relevant or what has been said about him is false. No person may be excused just by writing a letter to the Senate. They must appear and explain why they think they should no longer be asked to testify. If the Senate insists that they testify, then they have to, because the Supreme Court said that the power of contempt of the Senate is equal to the power of the courts.
Suppose the First Gentleman say that according to his doctors, this might be either fatal to him or seriously impair his medical health, then we can subpoena his doctors if we want to go behind him and if we don’t want to accept his explanation on its face. We are at a liberty to subpoena his doctors. But an investigation need not be a fatal threat in his medical condition. It just has to be potentially and substantially injurious to a person’s health. If this is the case, we have to apply the rule in our Senate Rules of Procedure that the rights of persons affected by the legislative inquiry must be respected. Certainly, the right to life or good health must be protected. But if it comes to that, we first have to wait for the response of the First Gentleman.
The First Gentleman cannot just ignore a subpoena from the Senate. But as an exception, he can submit a letter if the very fact of his appearance in the Senate may, for example, raise his blood pressure or already damage his heart. In that case, we must make an exception for him. But if some senators are skeptical, then we can subpoena his doctors.
-o0o-