12 November 2007
Transcript of the interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago at the Session Hall
On alleged bribery involving Malacañang:
If there’s a charge of bribery against the President, we have to remember that the President always sits in two capacities. One, as President of the country. Two, as nominal President of her political party or, in this case, her party coalition. It is also possibly a valid defense if it is raised by the administration officials that the distribution of money in Malacañang was owing to a decision of the directorate or a council of the coalition of the President’s coalition party. There will be no illegality because all political parties are supposed to give financial backing to all its incumbents in government. There would be nothing wrong in that position. I should know because when I started the People’s Reform Party all the candidates in my ticket were all asking me for money which I did not have. Apparently, this is a standard expectation of all political personalities who belong to a political party.
The problem there is that the coalition officials did not immediately come out and assure the public that this is existing political procedure. If the charge is bribery, because of the impeachment complaint, I would say that there is a very far gap between the handing out of money in Malacañang by the President’s political party and coalition and the impeachment complaint. You cannot just tie them both immediately. There are so many loose ends if that is the proposition. Let the Senate proceedings take place, but I am afraid that the evidence would not be sufficient to even merit a recommendation to the Ombudsman to investigate the matter further.
Even if the act of giving out money is legal, isn’t it improper to give it out in Malacañang?
That is precisely the point. Why do it there? Why not in their party headquarters? If they don’t have an official headquarters, why not hold a dinner in some establishment? I think that is the error. Otherwise, I really do not see any illegality since after all political parties are supposed to do that.
Whether there is a conflict between the Senate hearing on the matter and the impeachment proceedings
The congressional power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is plenary, that is the ruling of the Supreme Court. We can virtually investigate anything. There is no prejudicial nature here. Just because it’s being taken up there (Lower House) doesn’t mean it can no longer be taken up here.
On whether the North Rail Project probe should be reopened:
Definitely yes. In the first place, it has not been terminated. Apparently, the evidence received in the last session of Congress is that he (JDV) might have expressed illicit interest in that contract.
On the JPEPA:
Politics is the art of the possible. Among the administration senators, we really want to support President Arroyo on the JPEPA. The immediate goal here is, first, to convince the opposition. Remember, we need 2/3 vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty. The administration senators do not constitute 2/3 of the Senate. Since there are only eight administration allies, we need eight more. In the Senate, as it is really intended to be in the system of checks and balances, the senators do not always vote according to national interest, which is a very abstruse concept. They vote according to partisan political lines. We face the problem of what appears to be an intractable opposition.
Even more important, we have to be sure that when this treaty is brought before the Supreme Court, which I believe is a certainty, the Supreme Court will not embarrass the President because we want to preserve the integrity of the Philippine President as the official spokesperson of the country in the international community, as well as the integrity of the Philippine Senate as a participant in the decision-making process. I know for a fact that some UP Law professors have already finished drafting a petition for certiorari questioning the constitutionality of the JPEPA before the Supreme Court. They are just waiting for the concurrence of the Senate on the treaty before filing the petition with the Supreme Court.
There are two main objections to the JPEPA. The first constitutional objection is it makes no reservation for any future measure that the Philippines may take in order to express preference, for example, for Filipino nationals, or for Filipino goods and services, or for protecting our domestic industries or our domestic workers, or any developmental measure to protect our people from the interest of Japanese investors. That is almost an invidious failure on the part of the negotiating team.
The second objection is that our Constitution is not adequately protected by the present text of the JPEPA. So if this case is brought to the Supreme Court, I’m afraid it’s a no-brainer, but that’s only my preliminary opinion. Since there is one more public hearing, prudence dictates that I should only express a preliminary opinion. But in my humble view, JPEPA should be accompanied by a supplemental agreement. I am willing to sponsor on the Senate floor a resolution for the President to continue talks with the Japanese government in order that we can have a supplemental agreement. After which, both the JPEPA and the supplemental agreement should then be reported out on the Senate floor. I think then concurrence will no longer be difficult.
-o0o-