Miriam Defensor Santiago's Blog, page 4

MIRIAM IS NETIZENS’ TOP CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago on Sunday said that social media has led to an extraordinary change in voting attitude among Filipinos, as she emerged as netizens’ top choice for president in a Facebook-based poll.

Latest results of the survey on Facebook page Pinoy History showed that 48.36 percent of respondents want Santiago as president in 2016, despite the fact that she is the only presidential aspirant who has yet to release campaign ads.

Bets bombarding the media with ads tailed Santiago: Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, 42.35 percent; former Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, 3.86 percent; Sen. Grace Poe, 2.15 percent; and Vice President Jejomar Binay, 1.28 percent.

The group behind the survey claimed the results show “the real score of candidates in the upcoming presidential elections” according to the 40 million social media users in the Philippines.

“Social media is the key to winning the 2016 elections. Traditional politicians can always pay for advertisements, or even pre-election surveys, but no amount of money can silence Filipinos on social media,” Santiago said.

Since announcing her presidential bid in October, Santiago has not tapped traditional media—television, radio, and print—for ads, in deference to election laws that intended to limit the campaign period to be from February 9 to May 7.

In the 2009 case of Peñera v. Commission on Elections, the Supreme Court ruled that the offense of premature campaigning has been decriminalized by R.A. No. 8436, or the New Poll Automation Law, as amended.

To reject the Peñera doctrine, Santiago has filed Senate Bill No. 2445, or the Anti-Premature Campaigning Bill, which seeks to prohibit candidates and even prospective candidates from campaigning a year before the elections.

“A protracted campaign period corrupts elected officials because it allows them to spend more and more money for ads. They are bound to steal that money back when they are in office,” the senator said.

“In addition, sincere but poor candidates always lose their chance to serve the public to richer and more popular candidates. In the absence of a law that will break this cycle, social media is the equalizer,” Santiago said.

Despite not having ads, Santiago consistently tops online pre-election surveys. In a recent survey on the official Facebook fan page of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Santiago was chosen by some 64 percent of the 135,622 respondents.

Poe was a far second in the poll, with only 14.35 percent of votes, followed by Roxas (11.64 percent), and Binay (7.26 percent). The PUP survey was conducted from October 16, the deadline for filing of certificates of candidacy, to October 25.

MIRIAM SLAMS ‘BLOATED, AMBITIOUS’ 2016 BUDGET

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago blasted Malacañang for proposing an inflated budget in 2016 despite notorious underspending throughout the Aquino administration, and for retaining lump-sum appropriations similar to the nullified Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

In a speech read by Sen. JV Ejercito, Santiago on Thursday urged her colleagues to be vigilant about the budget, noting that the Constitution vested on Congress the power of the purse, or the power to determine how people’s taxes should be spent.

“Last year, I warned about excesses in pork barrel spending, and abuses in the utilization of lump-sum appropriations and unprogrammed expenditures. I repeat the same warning on the 2016 budget; only the portents are more grave and the threats to our financial stability more serious,” the senator said.

The Senate is deliberating on the P3-trillion budget Malacañang proposed for 2016, 17.4 percent or P447 billion higher than the 2015 budget. Santiago called the proposal “ambitious” given the Aquino administration’s “epic underspending record” since it came into power.

The senator explained that the government underspent by a total of P670 billion from 2011 to 2014. She added that in the first seven months of 2015, underspending was already “colossal” at P190 billion.

“It is not as if the Aquino administration is meeting its promised outputs and outcomes at less cost. It is simply failing in meeting its promises to the Filipino people,” Santiago said, citing poor infrastructure, high unemployment rates, and chronic poverty.

Reasons for underspending, the senator said, include “sheer incompetence”, the practice of “deliberatively bloating the budget request so it can play around with the artificial ‘savings’”, and “poor budget planning by including projects that are not implementation-ready.”

Santiago warned that a bloated 2016 budget, like the 2015 budget, is prone to electoral politics. “Decisions about fund transfers in the guise of ‘savings’ are not necessarily for public purposes but for election-related objectives,” she added.

The senator noted, however, that the most dangerous budget threat is “the continued presence of PDAF-like allocations and the provisions for lump sum appropriations,” which she said was “in open defiance of the Constitution and three recent decisions of the Supreme Court.”

“Every time a lump-sum appropriation exists it potentially means that the original budget approved by Congress, the general appropriations act, is illegally superseded and replaced by a mechanism created by one department or agency,” Santiago said.

This practice creates a “budget within a budget” sans consent of Congress and extends to the heads of departments and agencies a power they do not have, Santiago said. “By usurping the congressional power of the purse, it violates the principle of separation of powers,” she added.

Santiago urged the Senate to realign “PDAF-like budget items”—contestable budget items and lump sums—totaling P166.3 billion to alternative expenditures for social development as proposed by civil society and people’s organizations, in order to protect the Constitution, respect the Supreme Court decisions, and, at the same time, respond to actual needs.

She also moved to disapprove some objectionable special provisions that authorize heads of agencies in the Executive Branch the authority to modify and realign the programs, activities, and projects as authorized by Congress, through the general appropriations act.

These provisions allegedly violate the Constitution, Article 6, Section 25 (5), which states that only the specific officers mentioned are authorized by law to “augment any item in the budget for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations”.

The Senate should also totally reject the redefinition of savings which Santiago said “exacerbates the unconstitutional provisions of the 2015 budget and willfully ignores the three decisions of the Supreme Court on PDAF and DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program).”

Under the proposed budget, the government may declare as savings funds that have not been obligated due to:

• final discontinuance of an ongoing program, activity, or project;

• non-commencement of a program, activity, or project;

• decreased cost resulting from improved efficiency; or

• difference between the approved budget and contract award price.

Repeating her opposition to the definition of savings in the 2015 budget, Santiago said that after the budget has been enacted, heads of agencies can longer modify or realign specific budget items. She added that only when the project is completed can savings be determined.

“Augmentation from savings, appropriately defined, is allowed in the Constitution under very restrictive conditions. Realignment is not contemplated in the Constitution. It violates the Supreme Court decision on the DAP,” the senator said.

Santiago also wants to limit, rather than expand, the scope of the power to augment, noting that new projects must instead be included in the budget for the next fiscal year, and that, if extremely necessary, the President has the option to submit a supplemental budget.

“During the last five budgets, Congress has dutifully approved the President’s Budget. What the President wants, he gets…. We do not have to be subservient to the Executive Department. We have our own mandate and our own responsibility,” Santiago said.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH ON THE 2016 BUDGET

By Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

(read by Sen. JV Ejercito)

26 November 2015

The 2016 Budget Proposal

Next year, the Aquino administration proposes a P3.0 trillion budget, P447 billion higher than the 2015 budget, or an increase of 17.4 percent.

That is quite ambitious for three reasons. First, is the epic underspending record that it has displayed in the last five years. What has the Aquino government done lately to convince us that there has been a dramatic change its competency?

Second, there is an election ban before and after the presidential elections. That would surely slow down spending for public infrastructure.

Third, a new administration will come to power on 1 July 2016. Historically, public spending would tend to be lower during the first four quarters of a new administration.

Notorious Underspending

The Aquino administration for the last five years has been known for missing its spending targets.

In 2011, it asked Congress for a budget of P1.711 trillion. It managed to spend only P1.557 billion, or an underspending of P154 billion.

In 2012, it asked Congress for a budget of P1.854 trillion. It managed to spend only P1.778 trillion or an underspending of P76 billion.

In 2013, it asked Congress for a budget of P2.021 trillion. It managed to spend only P1.880 trillion, or an underspending of P141 billion.

In 2014, it asked Congress for a budget of P2.281 trillion. It managed to spend only P1.982 billion, or an underspending of P299 billion.

That is a total underspending of P670 billion in just four years. This year is not any better. Planned spending from January to July 2015 was P1.470 trillion. But actual spending was P1.28 trillion, for a colossal underspending of P190 billion in just seven months.

It is not as if the Aquino III administration is meeting its promised outputs and outcomes at less cost. It is simply failing in meeting its promises to the Filipino people.

The Philippines suffers in comparison with its ASEAN-5 neighbors in terms of public infrastructure. It has the worst roads, airports, sea ports, most expensive and unreliable power supply and the slowest and most expensive internet connections among its neighbors.

It has the worst unemployment rates. And it is the poorest in terms of per capita GDP and proportion of poor people below the poverty line.

So why does it continue to underspend? (A) sheer incompetence; (B) deliberatively bloating the budget request so it can play around with the artificial ‘savings’; (C) poor budget planning by including in the budget projects that are not implementation-ready; or (D) All of the above.

Budget-Related Challenges

Last year, at around this time, I delivered a privilege speech warning about excesses in pork barrel spending, and abuses in the utilization of lump- sum appropriations and unprogrammed expenditures.

I rise again to repeat the same warning on the 2016 budget; only the portents are more grave and the threats to our financial stability more serious.

Aside from underspending, what are the budget-related challenges which confront us in 2016? The most serious challenge of all is the problem of poverty which continues to rise in spite of our vaunted economic growth.

NEDA Secretary Arsenio Balisacan has reported that among ASEAN countries Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, only our country’s poverty levels continue to rise, while those of other countries have gone down.

Unemployment and underemployment remain inordinately high. Social Weather Stations reports that 27.6% of those without jobs are women. Furthermore, 50.2% of the jobless are within the ages of 18-24 years. We are not taking care of our young jobseekers.

We also face the threats and consequences of accelerated climate change. There will be more storms, typhoons, earthquakes and floods. We cannot reverse the onslaught of natural disasters. We can only prepare for them.

Still another challenge is the 2016 election. There is no doubt at all that the 2015 and 2016 budgets are prone to electoral politics. Decisions about fund transfers in the guise of “savings” are not necessarily for public purposes but for election-related objectives.

However, the most dangerous threat is the continued presence of PDAF-like allocations and the provisions for lump sum appropriations in the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) for 2016. This is in open defiance of the Constitution and the three recent decisions of the Supreme Court on PDAF and DAP.

The entire 2016 President’s budget is littered with ‘lump-sum’ appropriations, some nationwide, some region-wide. Especially lethal are those that would be released “upon submission by the agency concerned to the DBM of special budget(s) detailing the actual project, activity, or program (PAP) and actual amount to be expended, the rationale and purposes approved by the President.”

Every time a lump-sum appropriation exists it potentially means that the original budget approved by Congress, the general appropriations act, is illegally superseded and replaced by a mechanism created by one department or agency. This “budget within the budget” is a “pseudo” appropriations made without Congressional imprimatur. It extends to the heads of departments and agencies a power they do not have. By usurping the congressional power of the purse, it violates the principle of separation of powers.

Call for Congress to Do its Job

During the last five budgets, Congress has dutifully approved the President’s Budget. What the President wants, he gets. We have forgotten that the Filipino people has vested unto us the power of the purse – the power to determine how their taxes should be allocated. It took the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) to remind us that we have a covenant with the Filipino people.

Mr. President, we must use the 2016 budget to deal with these threats and challenges. We do not have to be subservient to the Executive Department. We have our own mandate and our own responsibility.

I propose the following:

1. Realign contestable budget items and lump sums totaling P166.3 billion to alternative expenditures for social development.

A. A review of the budgets of government agencies identified P58.2 billion – in budget items which are contestable.

B. Examination of lump sum appropriations yielded P108.1 billion in contestable allocations.

C. These contestable allocations which exhibit the characteristics of PDAF can be realigned to various social development expenditures as proposed by civil society organizations and people’s organizations in the amount of P155.4 billion.

Mr. President, by taking this bold step, we realign items of expenditures which are PDAF-like. Thus, we protect the Constitution and respect the Supreme Court decisions. At the same time, we respond to actual needs articulated by our own people which they have presented in their alternative proposals.

2. Disapprove some objectionable special provisions that authorize heads of agencies in the Executive Branch the authority to modify and realign the programs, activities, and projects as authorized by Congress, through the general appropriations act.

The General Appropriations Bill contains some special provisions that unconstitutionally and unlawfully authorize the respective heads of agencies in the Executive Branch – not even the President as Head of the Executive Branch – to modify and realign the program, projects or activities after the same has been authorized by Congress through its enactment of the General Appropriations Act. But realignment, reprioritization, and reallocation are species of transfer or augmentation prohibited under the Constitution, Article 6, Section 25 (5). Under Section 25 (5), only the specific officers mentioned are authorized by law to “augment any item in the budget for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations”.

3. Totally reject the redefinition of savings which exacerbates the unconstitutional provisions of the 2015 GAA and willfully ignores the three decisions of the Supreme Court on PDAF and DAP.

Mr. President, we all know that in 2014, the Supreme Court declared PDAF and DAP as unconstitutional. However, PDAF-like items are still embedded in the 2016 General Appropriations Bill. This is made justifiable by the redefinition of “savings” in the provisions of the bill.

The definition of savings (Sections 65 and 66 of the General Provisions) skirts the Supreme Court ruling (Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, 1 July 2014) against the DAP. The High Court ruled that savings can be declared only when there are still funds available after the final discontinuance or abandonment of the project, activity, or program (PAP).

I therefore propose that the definition of savings as reflected in the 2014 GAA and as expounded by the Supreme Court be incorporated in the 2016 GAA, in lieu of the present definition in the 2016 GAB.

Prior to 2014, past administrations have lived under such definition of savings. The 2015 and 2016 formulations of savings were meant to circumvent the Supreme Court decision on the DAP. Congress should not be a party to this attempt to defy the High Court.

Balances of appropriations arising from unused compensation and related costs cannot, and should not be considered savings, because it might create perverse fiscal behavior. The agency head may choose not to hire personnel (teachers, policemen, judges, etc.) when public interest require that they should, presumably so they can create savings within his/her agency. It may also create incentives for the Budget secretary to overestimate the personnel requirements so he can generate savings that later can be used to augment other items in the budget. It should be noted that the proposed 2016 budget request a huge P92.258 billion for the lump-sum Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund. It would be good budget practice not to treat balances of appropriations from lump-sum funds (Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, the National Disaster and Risk Reduction and Management Fund (P38.896 billion), the Pension and Gratuity Fund (P113.977 billion) as savings.

Mr. President, we are facing difficult challenges. If we allow the trend of PDAF and DAP abuse to continue we will be neglecting our duty to respond to the articulated needs of our people. We will be abandoning our oath to defend the Constitution.

4. Delete Section 68 of the GAB or House Bill No. 6132. Augmentation from savings, appropriately defined, is allowed in the Constitution under very restrictive conditions. Realignment is not contemplated in the Constitution. It violates the Supreme Court decision on the DAP.

Limit, rather than expand, the scope of the power to augment. If there are new projects that need to be funded, there is always the budget for the next fiscal year. If it is extremely necessary (like in the Mt. Pinatubo eruption or other serious calamities), the President has the option to submit a supplemental budget.

Let us all join hands in making the 2016 budget an inclusive instrument for serving our people and for upholding the Constitution!

DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY OF TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE K TO 12 ENVIRONMENT

Keynote speech by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago at the 4th TVET National Congress, SMX Convention Center, SM Aura, 12 November 2015

According to UNESCO, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) must aim to equip each individual with “knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a sustainable future.”

It is imperative that important issues on sustainable development be incorporated into the curriculum of technical and vocational schools if it is to flourish in the K to 12 environment. It is not enough to just give a Certificate of Competency or a National Certificate Level after finishing a technical-vocational (tech-voc) livelihood track in Grade 12. The aim is not just the employability of Grade 12 graduates in fields like agriculture, electronics, and trade, but their lifelong advantage.

As of today, to what extent are the following global issues embedded in tech-voc training: biodiversity, climate change, disaster risk reduction, poverty alleviation, sustainable consumption? If K to 12 has begun lessons on sustainable development, then technical and vocational education must usher in the “21st century green economy,” with earth-friendly “green” jobs.

The pillars of the transformative agenda must be at the fulcrum of your development and sustainability framework in the K to 12 environment.

Capacity Pillar. First, observe your areas of strength in the highest capacity level of sustainability. In other words, know your best practices. What mechanisms and processes have you used with success over a period of time, regularly reviewed and enhanced? Second, look into your areas of adequacy regarding sustainability in K to 12. What mechanisms and processes are fully functional? Third, think of your minor and major areas for improvement: which ones are not consistently implemented? What principles of sustainability are non-existent and are reactive?

Competency Pillar. Do the same analysis for your areas of strength, this time identifying where your key leaders and students are considered to be experts or have advanced knowledge, training, or experience. In order to excel in sustainability, explore cutting-edge policies, programs, and practices that will benefit technical-vocational education in relation to K to12. The following are six ideas using the acronym S.E.C.U.R.E.

S means strengths-based skills sharpening. The world’s best managers are guided by the assumptions that: (1) each person’s talents are enduring and unique; (2) each person’s greatest room for growth is in the areas of his/her greatest strength.

Our vision: Skills sharpening in technical-vocational schools will be strengths-based. Grade 12 graduates of technical-vocational tracks will be fulfilled as they discover, develop, and deliver great results using their strengths.

E means exponential expansion or having community-based sustainable development in GREEN environments of the future. Tech-voc schools can get involved in multi-sectoral community-based GREEN projects, like sustainable manufacturing of educational manipulatives (or physical tools of teaching) to supply K to 12 schools, first in the Philippines, then abroad.

Our vision: Tech-voc training centers will ensure that every output of students enrolled in each tech-voc centers won’t be wasted, unlike nowadays where course requirements are usually discarded/thrown after they’ve been graded, but will be powerfully used as prototypes of educational manipulatives for the various subjects in K+12, not just in kinder.

C means combo-turbo campaign, which combines skills training with social responsibility, in order to achieve an unprecedented turbo multiplier effect. For example, the Harvard School of Public Health’s Alcohol prevention Project worked closely with television network leaders and scriptwriters to incorporate messages in prime-time television programs to warn against drunk driving, and to promote the designation of one driver among a group of friends.

U means Unique Selling Point (USP). What unique selling point of tech-voc schools can be harnessed in order to develop and be sustained in the context of K to 12? You alone can pioneer technology-based futuristic education. For example, students of automotive technician courses can work on electrical or hybrid cars, while students of construction/building trades can use solar-powered generators to work machinery and assist in building projects for Habitat for Humanity or Gawad Kalinga. In the Philippines, tech-voc students can partner with science schools on these experiments.

R means research-based risk-taking. I reiterate “research-based” because risk-taking alone is not only costly and wasteful of Filipino taxes, but it is also unwise to proceed with an untested idea.

Professional business clubs, like the Mindanao Business Club, can conduct research-based product or skills innovation contests that encourage creative and sustainable ideas from tech-voc students. A possible requirement of the contest is for tech-voc schools or students to have a partner school, and a community-based NGO partner in the target K to 12 locale. A similar undertaking is already being done by the Universities and Councils Network on Innovation for Inclusive Development in Southeast Asia in the Philippines and Asia, but I am not aware of an organization like it which is solely focused on tech-voc schools or student involvement. Hopefully, Philippine business associations will take interest, as a form of social entrepreneurship.

E means ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) Policy-making and Positive Organizational Development. Policy development is an important component of the sustainability of tech-voc schools in the K to 12 environment. But laws need legs or a step-by-step progress of implementing rules and regulations (IRR).

Eventually, tech-voc schools’ goal should be to create a new curriculum for each of the tech-voc courses linked to sustainability. For example, in the course Nail Technology, one goal may be to: “demonstrate awareness of sustainability as it pertains to nail technicians and the industry” and several related learning outcomes, such as to “describe the impact of human sustainability on the health and well-being of Nail Technicians and clients”. The learning outcomes should not only environmental, but include social sustainability and sustainable business practices as well.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I envision positive organizational development processes to energize tech-voc leaders and students together in creating policies, programs, and practices that support education for sustainable development in the K to 12 environment.

Empowerment of all involved stakeholders is the key to success. Great possibilities can be realized if your varied gifts are synergized with the intellectual treasures of like-minded tech-voc advocates.

MIRIAM SPONSORS EDCA RESOLUTION

Sponsorship speech on Senate Resolution No. 1414, by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago on 10 November 2015

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:

On behalf of my twelve other co-authors, I have the honor to sponsor Senate Resolution No. 1414, entitled “Resolution expressing the strong sense of the Senate that any treaty ratified by the President of the Philippines should be concurred in by the Senate, otherwise the treaty becomes invalid and ineffective.”

The Resolution that we will approve is Constitutional Law. The strong sense of the Senate that it embodies is a confirmation of its supremacy over any self-serving speculation that is forced subjectively on the Constitution.

Central to the thesis of the Senate in this Resolution are the general and the particular principles which combine as the law of treaties under the Constitution.

The general is contained in the Treaty Clause of the Constitution which reads in Article 7, Section 21, thus:

No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

This is the only provision of the fundamental law that determines the validity and effectiveness of treaties as law of the land. Other than concurrence of the Senate, no authority expressly transforms a treaty into law.

This general mandate is brought into application to a treaty of a particular kind, namely, as described in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25:

.… foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.… and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. (Emphasis added)

In particular concurrence of the Senate becomes an integral element of a treaty of a special kind in which concurrence forms part of its essential nature. This time there cannot be a treaty without Senate concurrence; the treaty is void.

Before the Supreme Court is the constitutionality of the executive agreement concluded by authority of the President with the United States Government, entitled Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). In defiance of the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25, EDCA is without question a prohibited treaty of “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” concluded in the absence of Senate concurrence.

The oral arguments presented in behalf of the Executive Department in the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General clearly described EDCA in the nature of “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” and thus constitutes a judicial admission that it is of the category that “shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate”, by authority of the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25.

The textual composition of EDCA in itself evidences that it belongs to the category of prohibited treaty, namely, it is a treaty of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” without the concurrence of the Senate. That such a prohibited “treaty” has been concluded by the Executive Department as an executive agreement testifies to its inherently prohibitory nature under the Constitution, by reason of EDCA’s substantive provisions dealing with the establishment, location, stationing of the United States military forces and storage of military facilities in Philippine territory.

While the prohibitory nature of the constitutional mandate is inescapably clear, the Executive Department is in the attempt to wash it off from the fundamental law in avoidance of legal consequences which should include the Civil Code, Article 5 which reads:

Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void except when the law itself authorizes their validity.

Perhaps, the saving clause of this provision may call for the application of Senate concurrence to “save” the troubled executive agreement. But how does this agreement survive the demand of Article 7 of the same Code in the following terms:

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

The only “defense” of the executive agreement in question may rely on the Constitution, Article 8, Section 4(2), which provides that:

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc…. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

While this procedural provision deals with the “constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement,” it does not pertain to any treaty, international or executive agreement of a particular subject-matter at issue on the constitutionality.

Hence, on the remote assumption that this provision may be applicable to a case involving the constitutionality of a treaty or executive agreement, it must exclude from its applicability or interpretation the prohibited treaty as described with particularity in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25, i.e., the case of constitutionality of a treaty (or executive agreement) concerning “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.” The prohibitory character of this provision must command supremacy over the general and ambiguous language of the Constitution, Article 8, Section 4 (2).

We begin with the confidence that Senate Resolution No. 1414 is an expression of Constitution Law on the matter of critical importance to the integrity of the Senate and the honor of this Republic.

It is on this premise that we believe with the same confidence that the Supreme Court will consider this Resolution with decisive concern.

SENATE: EDCA IS A PROHIBITED TREATY

Voting 15-1-3, senators on Tuesday adopted Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s resolution expressing the strong sense of the Senate that, absent their concurrence, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is a treaty prohibited under the Constitution.

Besides Santiago, those who voted in favor of the resolution were Senators Sonny Angara, Nancy Binay, JV Ejercito, Chiz Escudero, TG Guingona, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Serge Osmeña, Koko Pimentel, Grace Poe, Ralph Recto, and Cynthia Villar.

The 15th vote came from Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was not at the session hall during the vote, but later manifested that she is voting in the affirmative.

Plenary approval formalizes Senate Resolution No. 1414 as the Senate’s position on the question of the validity and effectivity of the EDCA, on which the Supreme Court is allegedly set to decide before U.S. President Barack Obama visits Manila.

Only Sen. Sonny Trillanes voted against the resolution, deferring to the Supreme Court. Under the same premise, Senate President Frank Drilon and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile abstained. Sen. Bam Aquino, who was not in session during the vote, later manifested his abstention.

In her sponsorship speech, Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations, argued that the EDCA “belongs to the category of prohibited treaty, namely, it is a treaty of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities without the concurrence of the Senate.”

“The Resolution that we will approve is Constitutional Law. The strong sense of the Senate that it embodies is a confirmation of its supremacy over any self-serving speculation that is forced subjectively on the Constitution,” the senator said.

Santiago, the foremost constitutional expert in the Senate, insisted that “other than concurrence of the Senate, no authority expressly transforms a treaty into law.” She cited the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, Article 7, Section 21, which states that:

No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

The senator added that the need for Senate concurrence was made an integral part of the nature of a special kind of treaty—that which involves “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities”—by the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25:

.… foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.… and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. (Emphasis added)

Santiago said the EDCA falls under this prohibition, as it had substantive provisions on the establishment, location, stationing of the U.S. military forces and storage of military facilities in Philippine territory.

“That such a prohibited ‘treaty’ has been concluded by the Executive Department as an executive agreement testifies to its inherently prohibitory nature under the Constitution,” the senator said.

She further claimed that the prohibitory character of Article 18, Section 25 trumps Article 8, Section 4(2), which Macalañang uses to defend the EDCA as an executive agreement. The Constitution, Article 8, Section 4(2), states that:

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc…. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

“On the remote assumption that this provision may be applicable to a case involving the constitutionality of a treaty or executive agreement, it must exclude from its applicability the prohibited treaty as described in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25,” Santiago said.

The Senate statement on EDCA comes a week before U.S. President Barack Obama’s expected arrival in the Philippines for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meet on November 18 and 19, along with heads of state of other APEC members.

“We begin with the confidence that Senate Resolution No. 1414 is an expression of Constitution Law on the matter of critical importance to the integrity of the Senate and the honor of this Republic,” Santiago said.

The senator added that she hopes the Supreme Court, to which she sent a copy of the proposed resolution in June, will consider the strong statement from the Senate “with decisive concern.”

MIRIAM WANTS ‘LAGLAG-BALA SCAM’ PROBED

Responding to an online petition signed by some 12,000 netizens, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago on Friday urged her colleagues to investigate the “laglag-bala” scandal at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, which victimizes overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

Santiago has filed Senate Resolution No. 1635 amid reports that airport security personnel are involved in an extortion scam wherein bullets are planted in the luggage of passengers, who are later asked huge amounts of cash under threat of lawsuit.

“The reports highlight how corruption defeats the purpose of law enforcement. Second, they raise a legitimate question on the implementation of the law on the illegal possession of ammunition. Finally, they underline inaction on the part of government,” the senator said.

The media has so far reported six cases using the modus operandi. The latest victims are Gloria Orrinez, an OFW bound for Hong Kong, and Japanese national Kazunobu Sakamoto, who were both arrested on October 25. Only Sakamoto was able to post bail for P80,000.

“The perpetrators of the alleged scam are brazen, perhaps because they know they will not be punished. We must prove them wrong,” Santiago said in response to the signature campaign on online petition platform Change.org.

The petition was launched by Ednalyn Purugganan, an OFW in Hong Kong. “Lahat kami ang pinakaasam-asam ang makauwi sa Pilipinas kahit panandalian lang.Makakauwi pa ba kami nang walang takot na baka sa kulungan ang bagsak namin?” Purugganan said in her open letter.

Santiago condemned how the extortion scam targets OFWs who see airports as their connection to home. “Wrongly accusing OFWs of a crime and forcing them to pay huge amounts of cash is not the way to repay those whom we call our modern-day heroes,” the senator said.

She added that the scandal might impact Philippine tourism, a major job-generating industry, by sowing fear among foreigners using Philippine airports and eroding public trust in law enforcers.

In her resolution, Santiago said the Senate should consider creating a task force that will investigate alleged illicit activity of state agents, recommend sanctions against those involved, and put in place mechanisms that will deter similar schemes.

“We in Congress must also ensure that Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Act, is, on the one hand, properly implemented and, on the other, not abused by enforcers of the law,” the senator added.

Proposed Senate Resolution No. 1635 on the laglag-bala scandal

MIRIAM FACES BUSINESSMEN, BARES PLANS

(Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s statements during the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industries Presidential Forum 27 October 2015, Marriott Grand Ballroom, Pasay City)

My administration will bequeath to the next President a better and stronger nation than what I will inherit from this administration. In 2022, I will turnover to my successor a nation that is more prosperous, a people more united and prouder of their leaders, and political institutions that are more stable.

I commit to invest in people, in public infrastructure and in political institutions.

I commit that the Philippine economy will grow faster than ever before, that it will be truly inclusive by making sure that real incomes of workers will increase over time.

We will achieve the goal of higher and sustained economic growth by investing heavily in public infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, urban transit systems, airports and seaports are crumbling. We need to build them up at par with, if not better than, our ASEAN neighbors.

We need to prepare our people for a more modern, more competitive global economy. We need to educate them, take care of their health, and feed them so they will become productive members of a growing work force. Only by investing in people can we truly make growth inclusive. Only if the young are educated and healthy can they benefit from growing economic prosperity.

We will continue to support the Conditional Cash Transfer Program but we will plug the program’s leakages. We will also reduce the cost of running the program by involving local authorities in implementing it.

We need a vibrant and more productive agriculture hand in hand with a strong manufacturing. So we have to invest in agriculture productivity enhancing projects – irrigation, farm-to-market roads, water impounding facilities, post-harvest facilities, new seed varieties and research and development.

We will invest in political institutions. It’s been thirty years since we restored democracy in the Philippines. Yet, political institutions remain shaky. There exist no stable political parties in the real sense of the word. The Filipino people cannot hold accountable a political party for the mistakes of its candidates because it disappears as soon as the offending elected official leave office. This has to be corrected by passing a law authorizing the use of public funds to support dominant political parties.

I will support the recent Supreme Court decisions on PDAF and the DAP. They espouse the appropriate roles of the President and Congress in the use of public funds. The decisions ought to be supported not resisted.

When elected, my first act is to have the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) enacted into law. This is an important tool to promote public accountability.

I will restore meritocracy in government. Political parasites, incompetents, and unproductive workers will have no place in my administration.

I will recruit the best, the most competent, the most experienced, the most honest men and women to assist me run my administration.

The Filipino people will feel secure under my administration. They will feel secure at home, on the streets and their place of work. My administration will aggressively fight the war against illegal drugs that proliferate in most cities and towns in the country.

We will run the government’s finances responsively. First, we will reform the 19-year old tax system, making it fairer, more responsive to changes in the economy, simpler to administer, and in sync with our ASEAN-5 competitors.

Second, we will right-size government. We will start by conducting a swift review of ALL programs and projects of government. A Task Force will be created for each major department as soon as we get elected. We will hit the ground running on Day One (July 1st 2016). But there will be no slowdown in government operations.

Third, we will keep government deficits manageable by keeping it below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even as we aggressively build public infrastructure.

On her health

I had just filed my certificate of candidacy at the Commission on Elections and someone wrote an open letter that says, “If you’re really healthy, if you’re really free from cancer, why don’t you show all your medical records to the entire public?” I ask you: Have you seen a provision in the Constitution requiring a candidate to show medical records? There’s no such thing.

But, assuming, for the sake of argument that these records exist and I am willing to turn them over, although with all the concomitant burdens—first, the financial burden; pangalawa, kakalat nang kakalat iyan hanggang sa hindi na natin alam kung alin diyan ang totoo; at pangatlo, para maintindihan ninyo, hindi papayag ang ospital na maglabas ng medical records kung hindi papayag ang pasyente—ano naman ang karapatan ng isang tao na naglalakad diyan sa kalye, at bigla na lang siyang tatanungin, “May medical records ka ba? Kasi mukha kang taong may medical records eh.” Papayag ba kayo?

Isa pa, bakit ang aking medical records magiging paksa ng usapan natin tungkol sa pulitika? Ang pulitika ay tungkol sa peace and order. Ngayon, pilit ako na dinadala sa pulitika. Kapag inilabas ko ang lahat ng medical records ko, hindi na ang well-being ng ating bansa ang pag-uusapan kundi ang well-being ng aking mga kalaban sa pulitika. Kaya, umpisa na lang, ayaw ko dahil, una wala ito sa batas, at, pangalawa, wala itong maidudulot na kagandahan sa ating gobyerno.

Ako ang nagka-cancer, ako mismo ang nagsabing nagka-cancer ako, at ako mismo ang nagsabi na doon ako sa St. Luke’s Global City nagpagamot. Ako rin mismo ang nagsabi na ang doktor ko, ang dating Health Sec. Esperanza Cabral, oncologist si Dr. Gary Lorenzo, pulmonologist si Dr. Ruth Divinagracia.

Sabi ‘wag ako iboto dahil maari akong mamatay. Kung ganoon pala ang ikinakampanya nila, eh ngayon pa lang maari akong mamatay! Puwede ako masagasaan ng bus o jeep diyan sa labas. Gusto lang nila ako siraan! Besides, can’t you see me? Can’t you see that I can stand straight and I can look you in the eye? What else do you want? Why are you so nasty? What government do you want to grow into if this is your attitude? Magtulungan tayo. Let’s have a sense of shared destiny, not shared destruction. ‘Yan ang problema sa Pilipinas eh.

On running alongside Sen. Marcos

It’s not my function to defend [Sen. Marcos]. He should defend himself. I think he is capable of defending himself. He is perfectly capable of intellectualizing the situation he is in.

He was my student at the U.P. College of Law. I saw Mr. Marcos in class as more than an average student. As his former professor, I just think he does not devote enough time to his homework. He dropped out of class.

I have not seen prima facie evidence that he killed someone, raped someone, or burned a house, that he violated the Penal Code. Wala namang alegasyon na siya mismo gumawa. Noong Martial Law, maliit pa lang siyang bata.

There is no allegation that he himself sinned against his neighbor. We are going against what the Bible said: “The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son.” I am a church-going Catholic. I weighed these matters very carefully, I assure you. I wrote an entire book on theology and religion, and that’s my humble conclusion.

Bigyan natin siya ng pagkakataon dahil nanalo naman na siyang senador. Nanalo siya—ibig sabihin the greater majority do not have opposition to his being a public servant.

On Sen. Marcos covering up for Marcos crimes

That’s possible. In fact, the voting might show that it is likely. But unless I see prima facie evidence, I cannot be guided by thoughts that are negative against a fellow man. We cannot punish someone on the basis of suspicion. I can’t support that as a lawyer.

On customs administration

I understand the present system is chaotic. The many legislation and issuances affecting customs and tariffs have to be codified in one document and it has to be updated in the light of recent trade agreements. Hence, we need this Act.

Let us not have the illusion that the approval of this Act is a magic bullet that will solve the corruption at the Bureau of Customs. The solution there is to appoint a few good men to run BOC and for Malacanang to stop meddling with BOC. Corruption at the BOC will cease only if not tolerated by Palace officials.

On tax reforms

The Philippine tax system is 20 years old. It needs to be overhauled. But major tax reforms are best done at the start of each administration when the President has the clear mandate from the voters. I promise to reform it within six (6) months of my administration.

The objectives of the reform are: (a) to make the tax system in sync with its ASEAN-5 competitors; (b) to make it administratively simple (c) to make it fairer; and (d) make it responsive and higher yielding in order to finance the increasing needs of a growing economy.

There will be a lot of benchmarking with other ASEAN-5 peers. For the first three years, my administration will aim to shoot for the average number of steps. On years four to six we should try to be better than our ASEAN-5 neighbors. Cutting red tape at the local government level will be my top priority. Well performing local government units (LGUs) will be rewarded with additional intergovernmental grants.

Regulations at the Bureau of Customs and the regulatory bodies (ERC, SEC, BSP, DENR, and others) will be reduced drastically.

On infrastructure investment

The Philippine government should set aside at least 5% of its resources for public infrastructure for it to catch up with its ASEAN-5 neighbors and to sustain strong growth. Its poor public infrastructure is a major constraint to growth.

Among the major projects are the following:

A modern, international airport
An entirely new railway system from Manila to Sorsogon
A modern, integrated urban transit system in Metro Manila with lines reaching urban communities in Bulacan, Rizal, Cavite and Laguna
One mixed-use government center (with adjacent residential, commercial, and entertainment facilities) in the National Capital Region
One mixed-use government center (with adjacent residential, commercial and entertainment facilities) in each of the 17 regions.
One major project per region for the 17 regions
One major project per province (81 provinces)

For maximum impact and in response to the greater sense of urgency, these projects will be done simultaneously. Some will be done on pure PPP, some hybrid type (government will finance the construction and then will bid out the management and maintenance of the project after construction), and some by government through the usual public procurement procedure. In order to make the facilities affordable to citizens, the government will not require a premium from winning contractors.

In fact, in some cases, because of external benefits such as reduced traffic, lower pollution, etc., government subsidy maybe allowed in some of these public infrastructure projects.

On the financing side, we estimate that we have to allocate an enormous amount ranging from P819 billion in 2017 to P1.3 trillion in 2022. But we cannot build modern infrastructure on the basis of promises alone. It will have to be financed through better tax administration, tax policy reform, and government borrowings.

On economic liberalization

The first best solution is to amend the restrictive provisions in the Philippine Constitution which have discouraged the entry of foreign investors into the country. Compared to its ASEAN-6 counterparts, the Philippines has attracted the least Foreign Direct Investments. That is proof enough that we are lagging behind.

[Speaker Feliciano Belmonte’s] proposal is to amend [the provision on foreign ownership] not by amending the Constitution, but by adding certain provisions there: the phrase “as the law might provide.” So he is calling for an amendment to the Constitution, but in another way. I don’t know if the young people in this country would agree to that proposal, because it places the Constitution at the mercy of politicians. I don’t know if the young people today wish for our Constitution to be dictated to by foreigners. All of these have to be studied, possibly by means of a referendum.

First of all, we have to look at the figures for Foreign Direct Investments. If the figure is rising, then we are doing something right. If not, then there is something we are not doing that some countries have already done. I would say that these will become a subject matter between lawyers who specialize in comparative law—in that way, we will realize, or I hope manage, to make a conclusion on how they were able to increase Foreign Direct Investments in the country.

Final statement

The Freedom of Information bill deserves to be passed first if only to enhance transparency and public accountability. The posting of information on the official websites is not a substitute for the FOI bill. What is posted on the website is discretionary. The administrator chooses what information to disclose and what to suppress. With the FOI, concerned parties can ask specific information from department secretaries or agency heads, and the latter are duty bound to comply. That is what the public wants. That is what enhances transparency and accountability—not the selective posting of public information.

Ladies and gentlemen, come, join hands together, and let us face the future without flinching and with full faith and confidence that God will be our guide in our country.

MIRIAM TO VOTERS: DO YOU WANT ME?

(Transcript of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s speech at her U.P. Bahay ng Alumni meet and greet, 26 October 2015)

Allow me to introduce myself. I am the person who is seeking to run for public office next year, but because of this, at least one person on the Internet has voiced her urgent wish that I should die before six years. It is up to you whether to accommodate the macabre wishes of that person.

But as for me, I tell you today: I have passed through the hardest of all physical trepidations and hardships known to man. Cancer is not an easy disease to have. Still, thereafter, I decided, after consultation with my panel of doctors from St. Luke’s [Medical Center], that it should be up to me to decide whether or not I should campaign for president again.

My answer is this: Do you want a clean government? Do you want a courageous government? Do you want a government of, by, and for academic excellence? If that is the case, do you want me?

Alam mo, napansin ko sa Senado, hindi naman pala mahirap na ipunin ang pera ng gobyerno. Ang problema sa bansa nating ito, ang magsasalita, iyun din ang magnanakaw. Pangalawa, ‘pag nagsasalita sila na kunwari laban sila sa graft and corruption, mali-mali pa ang English nila. At pangatlo, ninanakaw nila ang pera ng gobyerno para ‘pag nakuha nila lahat ng pera, ibibili ulit nila ng boto ng taong bayan, nang sa gayon, wala nang katapusan ang pagnanakaw ng pera ng taumbayan. This must stop.

Kaya susubukan at susubukan ko pa rin ang lahat ng magagawa ko, [kahit na] tumatanda na ako.

(Crowd: Kasama mo kami!)

Kasama mo ako? Hindi mo lang alam ang ugali ko.

Basta ako, isisige ko at isisige itong ating laban sa ating bansa. Nag-eskwela ako sa America, nag-eskwela ako sa England. Kung saan-saan ako nag-eskwela. Hindi ako tatanggap na matatalo ako ng anumang bansa. Tayo ang magaling. Filipinos, believe in yourself. Have faith in the Filipino.

For, as poetry says, “It matters not how straight the gate, how charged with punishment the scroll. I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” Come and join me, and thank you very much for becoming the captain of your soul. Thank you.

MIRIAM ELEVATED TO PHILIPPINE JUDGES’ HALL OF FAME

I am not fully in acquaintance with the status of the trial judiciary today, being preoccupied with my functions in the Senate. Ang problema sa Senado, puro mga komiko. Hindi naman katatawanan sa RTC. Many a day I have rued the hour when I was appointed to the RTC.

There is something unique about the study of the legal profession as an academic subject. I taught in the evening at the U.P. College of Law after presiding over trial cases in the daytime. One thing I noticed as an academician was: That by the process of justice, the living are governed by the dead.

We lawyers are very fond of quoting cases. But normally, we quote these cases that are considered new in jurisprudential terms. However, it is not only the new cases that we must quote. We must also refer back to old, old cases, some of which are even more relevant today than they were at the time they were promulgated. That is my basis for saying that in justice, or in the judicial protocols, you will find that the dead continue to govern the living.

This is also the state of mind of my husband after he listened to me recite my cases for the day. He becomes the dead, when I lectured him on the living judge.

I will now just quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Every time, we are reprimanded to quote Justice Holmes, but he is not of the highest virtue. The highest virtue in government is the President of the Philippines. That’s why I’m not running for the position of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

The law, so far as it depends on learning, is indeed, as it has been called, the government of the living by the dead. To a very considerable extent no doubt it is inevitable that the living should be so governed. The past gives us our vocabulary and fixes the limits of our imagination; we cannot get away from it. There is, too, a peculiar logical pleasure in making manifest the continuity between what we are doing and what has been done before. But the present has a right to govern itself so far as it can; and it ought always to be remembered that historic continuity with the past is not a duty, it is only a necessity.

That’s Oliver Wendell Holmes for you. He’s always very abstruse, but his words always echo down the ages.

Finally, I would like to remark on how hard it is to be a judge. People think it is nothing to sit on the seat of justice and listen to both or even more sides of a controversy. But that is the apex of human endeavor: to provide for peace and felicity for all the citizens of the world. This is one of the most salubrious occupations in human history. We always try to put things together. While there are other professions that put things apart, the legal profession, exercised by regional trial courts, seeks to put things together.

It is also very difficult to get along well in the community without having to socialize. The Supreme Court has a problem drawing this line. How friendly shall we get to the community? We cannot live like monks, but at the same time, we cannot socialize and fraternize so freely that our objectivity as judges might be called in question. Also, if you are a coward, it will be very hard to be a judge, because there are some involved in cases who will decide to kill you instead.

So I have taught myself the lesson that if a person is going to kill me anyway, I might as well go down from the bench and kill him first. I have taken this technique once or twice. It has always worked. Bababa si judge, “Session suspended. Ikaw ha, kanina ka pa diyan pairap-irap. May gusto ka bang sabihin?” Tapos tatanggalin ko ang robes ko. “Gusto mo, kahit na anong klaseng away, pwede na ngayon.”

Pero ang pinakamagaling na sistema was for no-postponement, for which I received my Jaycee (Ten Outstanding Young Men) and TOWNS (The Outstanding Women in the Nation’s Service) awards. No postponement before was a dream. Everybody said no postponement, but everybody postponed. So the entire judicial society no longer believed in this. But, in my case, not only did I rule “Postponement denied.” I ruled this way: the lawyer stood before me, in all my majesty as the youngest judge in the country, and moves to postpone. So I said, “You see that poster there? It says no postponement for any reason except death. Counsel, you have to die before I grant your postponement.” He was so angry at me that he stood up and said, “The entire bar of Quezon City has witnessed this flagrant abuse of the powers of a judge. We would like to notify you that my friends and I have formed a group which would collectively grant postponement even if the reason is verifiable.”

At that time, every body has diarrhea. When a lawyer asks for postponement, he had diarrhea, the other lawyer had diarrhea, and their respective clients had diarrhea. There was an epidemic of diarrhea. In that case, I told him, “Well, that is your human right to file a disbarment case against me, but I will continue the case. Where is the client of this man? Stand up.” The client stood up. “Is he your lawyer? Did you hear the proceedings? Do you understand it? We are all here, we are all ready to try the case, but your lawyer doesn’t want to work.” The accused nodded his head in agreement. So I said, “Tayo lahat gusto magtrabaho, ayaw ng abogado. Kaya ang gagawin ko, bibigyan kita ng 30 minutos, maghahanap ako ng ibang abogado, at ang ibabayad mo dapat sa abogado na ito, ibigay mo doon sa kapalit. May dala ka bang pambayad?” “Opo, judge.” I think at that time, the going rate was P2,000 per appearance. So I took out the P2,000. “Akin na. Pagkatapos kang turuan ng bagong abogado mo, ibibigay ko ito sa kanya.” Pagkatapos ng hearing na iyon, bumalik ang abogadong galit sa akin. Sabi niya, “Judge, I changed my mind. Let us proceed with the case.” So I said, “Very good. That is an observation of the way this court conducts business, which is by no postponement.”

Ngayon, hindi tayo sigurado kung sino ang magiging presidente ng Pilipinas. Ang pag-asa na lang natin, na no-postponement ang elections natin.

There are many other features in the hard—sometimes unheralded, sometimes unpraised—work of a judge. To me, in this kind of society where we operate, where everything is so confusing, where everything seems so disoriented, to be a judge is to be a figure of learning and justice. A judge walking down the halls and corridors of power summarizes the best in the human being, the desire to be better than ourselves, to help our fellow man, to be a person not only of power and influence, but to be what a human being should be, who helps others obtain the justice destined to be ours from birth.

I would like to plead to this community, since you had fun and laughter last night at your ballroom sessions (if you have invited me, I’d have gone), as I urged myself when I was in trial court, when I was alone and lonely. I had no friends, I could not make any, I had no communication with human society, but I had communication with the rest of the dead who have been governing us who are the living. I said to myself, “It matters not how straight the gate, how charged with punishment the scroll. I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.”

Ladies and gentlemen, of the Philippine Judges Association, it is so difficult to get recognition after years of hard work in law school. It is almost against the grain to go begging to a politician for an endorsement. This is not the way things should be, but the brave and the courageous judge stands up over all, and always recites to himself: “It matters not how straight the gate, how charged with punishment the scroll. I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.”