Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s interview

On the significance of the testimony of the First Gentleman regarding the NBN-ZTE scandal

No, it is not vital to the prosecution case. Hypothetically speaking, if criminal charges are filed against the administration in connection with the ZTE case, the testimony of the First Gentleman will be very marginal. It is not absolutely necessary. It is not the core of the complaint. In fact the complainant himself admitted in public that the First Gentleman did not ask for any money. He simply allegedly said that De Venecia should stop pursuing the contract, which is pursuant to law. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 5, any relative within the third civil degree of the Speaker or any public official cannot directly or indirectly intervene in any contract or transaction with the government. So assuming that the complainant’s statement about the First Gentleman’s alleged statement is true, there is nothing wrong with it because it is all pursuant to the law. He (Joey) is in fact being given good sound legal advice.

On a Kampi executive allegedly bribing legislators to endorse the impeachment complaint against the President

Bribery is one of the hardest cases to prove because you cannot convict on the uncorroborated testimony of one person, even if he is a public official. It always takes two to give a bribe and accept the same bribe. It would be different if there was only an offer of a bribe. But still the quantum of evidence necessary is corroborated testimony. You cannot just testify in court that someone offered you a bribe. That will not stand under the rules of evidence. It will be extremely difficult to prove. In bribes, there are never any receipts or any other documentary or other forms of evidence. So it’s just a person’s word against another person’s. And the presumption of innocence is always in favor of the accused. [But if there are others who claim the same story], then there would be a prima facie case.

If a case will be filed against JDV in the Sandiganbayan…

He should at least, out of a sense of ethics, file a leave of absence. In fact, in ordinary cases, an official who has been charged under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act should be administratively suspended while the case is pending. That does not apply to the legislative branch because it only applies to the administrative branch, meaning to say the lower levels of the executive branch. But still, if we heed just legal ethics, he should at least go on temporary and indefinite leave of absence to erase any doubt that in his official position he may try to influence the outcome of the case.
-o0o-