Miriam Defensor Santiago's Blog, page 9

MIRIAM: COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY APPLIES TO SAF MASSACRE

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a widely recognized expert in international law, said that the recent massacre of some 44 policemen by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) makes the military commander and other superior officials responsible for war crimes under the charter of the International Criminal Court, which hears cases against heads of state and the top-ranking military commanders.

“The SAF massacre is properly called a ‘non-international armed conflict.’ We make this distinction, because the relationship of the Philippine government with a non-state actor like the MILF is different from the relationship of our government with other states. The rule is to deny legitimacy to rebels, terrorists, or other armed groups,” she said.

Santiago said that the death of some 44 members of the Police Special Action Force constituted “atrocities,” and therefore the punitive laws against war crimes apply.

“The legality of the non-international armed conflict in Mamasapano falls under three main international rules in international law: Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts; the Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol 2; and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” the senator said.

She added that the SAF massacre meets the highest threshold for a non-international armed conflict and also meets the level of intensity required.

Santiago, who was elected judge of the International Criminal Court but had to decline due to cancer, said that the Rome Statute contains a provision on war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict.

Santiago said the Rome Statute Article 8, para. 2, subpara. (f) provides: “It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a state when there is protracted armed conflict by the governmental authorities and organized armed groups.”

Santiago said that under the ICC Rome Charter, the military commander or person is criminally liable where two factors are present:

First, the commander either knew or should have known that his forces were about to commit such crimes.

Second, the military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to suppress the commission of the crime.

In order to determine whether to apply treaty-based rules on non-international armed conflicts, the senator said a distinction should be drawn between situations of armed conflict and those of law enforcement.

“Law enforcement activities remain below the threshold of an armed conflict, if for example, it merely involves the use of tear gas for domestic riot control purposes,” she said.

Santiago also wondered if the SAF massacre was an ‘internationalized conflict’ in the sense that there may have been another state that was a party to the conflict.

“Internationalized armed conflicts are subject to the law of international armed conflicts. These include situations of outside control of insurgency as decided in a 1999 case by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia,” she said.

Santiago said that after responsibility has been pinpointed, the military commander and other superior officers found guilty should be punished according to “rules derived from established customs, from the principles of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience, also known as the Marten’s Clause.”

In addition to international humanitarian law, Santiago invoked human rights law to punish those found guilty of the SAF massacre.

“International humanitarian rights conventions refer to so-called ‘core rights.’ Such rights can never be derogated from by any armed group, whether in a situation of internal disturbance and armed conflict,” she said.

Santiago said that the three main sources of humanitarian law that she cited are binding equally on all states and non-state entities involved in an armed conflict.

The senator also questioned the possible ‘intervention by another state or states’ in the SAF massacre because it is prohibited by international law.

As a general rule, foreign states are not normally allowed to provide help to the rebels in a non-international armed conflict situation.

She said that if the CIA was involved owing to the counter-terrorism campaign worldwide by the US government, any foreign help from the CIA would complicate the legality of the armed conflict.

“If the Philippine government received help from the CIA, then the rebels under international law would argue that they have a right of counter-intervention from their own friendly state,” she said.

Santiago cited the famous Nicaragua case decided by the International Criminal Court where the Court said:

“Encouraging the organization of armed bands for incursion into the territory of another state and by participating in acts of civil strife in that state, is not only an act of illegal intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign state, but also contrary to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force.”

MIRIAM USES DEBATE FORMAT IN SENATE BANGSAMORO BASIC LAW HEARING

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes, started public hearings on the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) by using the debate format.

Santiago opened the hearing by identifying four major issues on the constitutionality of the BBL: (1) legislation v. constitutional change; (2) checks and balances in the national government v. none in the BBL; (3) sovereignty v. sub-state; and (4) territorial integrity v. functional division.

Santiago paired off the resource panel depending on whether they are in favour or against the BBL.

The first debate paired off Sec. Teresita Quintos-Deles, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, against former Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano on legislation v. constitutional change.

Deles argues that the BBL can be passed as if it was an ordinary law passed by the two Houses of Congress. On the other hand, Feliciano contends that the BBL should be embodied as a proposal for constitutional amendment or revision. Those who support Feliciano’s position include former Justice Vicente V. Mendoza.

MIRIAM’S ‘STUPID IS FOREVER,’ BEST-SELLING AND FASTEST-SELLING BOOK OF 2014

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago’s book, “Stupid is Forever,” which was launched last 3 December 2014 at National Book Store Trinoma set a record of being the fastest-selling and best-selling book of 2014, according to National Book Store.

Santiago’s book was sold out and the hashtag #StupidisForever trended worldwide during its first day in the market. Netizens have expressed on Facebook and Twitter that it was in demand, making them reserve for it until it becomes available again in National Book Store. As of 11 January 2015, “Stupid is Forever” has sold 110,000 copies since its launch. National Book Store also put it in the Number 1 spot in their list of booksellers this January.

“Stupid is Forever” is a collection of jokes, one-liners, pick-up lines, comebacks, and speeches delivered and/or curated by Santiago. The joke book also features illustrations by talented illustrators such as Cj de Silva-Ong also known as the “Promil Kid”, Manix Abrera of “Kiko Machine”, Elbert Or, Rob Cham and more of the Philippines’ best young illustrators.

Santiago is well-known for her catchy pick-up lines before she starts her speeches and for her feisty and funny one-liners.

Due to popular demand, Santiago will hold a Meet and Greet again for “Stupid is Forever” on 22 January 2015 at National Book Store Glorietta from 2PM-4PM. The registration will start at 11AM. 500 signed copies will be sold and buyers, including those who have previously bought the book, can have the chance to have a picture taken with Santiago.

DESPITE CANCER, MIRIAM REMAINS TOP-PERFORMING SENATOR

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago is still the senator who filed the most number of bills and resolutions among her colleagues, despite her battle with lung cancer.

As of 17 December, the last session day of Congress in 2014, Santiago has filed a total of 1,007 bills and resolutions.

She was followed by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada with 604 bills and resolutions; Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV with 307; Sen. Lito Lapid with 219; and Sen. JV Ejercito with 217.

Santiago has consistently been the Senate’s top performer since her election in 2004. She is also credited for sponsoring or authoring the following laws: Reproductive Health Act; Biofuels Law; Renewable Energy Law; Sin Tax Law; Magna Carta of Women; Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act; Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity; Cybercrime Law; Seatbelt Law; Exact Change Act; Philippine Standard Time Act; Motorcycle Helmet Act; Kasambahay Law; Anti-Bullying Law; Archipelagic Baselines Law; and Climate Change Act.

She meanwhile urged the passage of the following bills before her term ends on 2016: the Anti-Commercialization of Human Organs, Tissues or Parts of Living Persons Bill; the Anti-Epal Bill; the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill; Billboard Regulation Bill; Call Center Bill; Child Care Centers Bill; Certificate of Intention to Run for Public Office Bill; Clear Sidewalks Bill; Compulsory Teaching of Ethics Bill; Deceased Donor Bill; HIV and AIDS Bill; Magna Carta of Workers in the Informal Sector; Pthalate-Free Toy Bill; Special Education Bill; Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom; and Whistleblowers Bill.

Among the 538 bills she filed in 2014 were proposals for the institutionalization of an age-appropriate curriculum to prevent the abduction, exploitation, and sexual abuse of children which are prejudicial to their development (Senate Bill No. 2339); stricter monitoring of bank accounts of politically exposed persons (Senate Bill No. 2438); part-time employment in place of retrenchment (Senate Bill No. 2470); and increasing court-awarded damages for death (Senate Bill No. 2513).

Santiago also filed resolutions urging the Senate to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation on the alleged Binay farm; projects by controversial Hilmarc’s Construction Corp.; the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement; and the series of abduction cases in Makati, among others.

As chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, Santiago presided over hearings on the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and the murder of transgender woman Jennifer Laude. She also secured Senate ratification of important treaties, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), and the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response.

The senator also participated in plenary debates on the Freedom of Information Bill. In November, Santiago delivered a privilege speech slamming the 2015 budget for its redefinition of “savings” and retention of pork barrel-like funds.

Santiago chaired the foreign affairs committee of the Commission on Appointments (CA) until the end of her term in the bicameral body in December. The senator’s committee was also the top performer in the CA, having secured the confirmation of more than 300 ambassadors, consuls, and other high-level officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In July last year, Santiago announced that she had been diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. She later revealed that she is in remission. But the senator said, “Only my body is sick, not my brain.”

MIRIAM LAUNCHES ‘STUPID IS FOREVER’

Transcript of the media interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago during the launch of her book

“Stupid is Forever” on 3 December 2014 at National Book Store Trinoma.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago: I came up with this collection of jokes because sometimes we are being too serious about the issues facing our country today. I think if we laughed more, and took ourselves less seriously, the public debate would be much better.

On the size of the crowd:

Nakakatuwa dahil nagpapatunay sa sinasabi ko na sa halip na mag-lecture o mag-orate sa taongbayan, kung minsan mas madali pa kung idaan na lang natin sa pabiro, dahil diyan nagkakaintindihan tayo. Tayong mga Pilipino, we have our own sense of humor, we have our own way of cracking jokes.

Kung minsan, kung masyadong seryoso ang tao at akala niya siya lang ang nakakaalam ng lahat ng bagay na kailangang malaman sa debate, mas mabuti pa kung hindi niya masyado pinapataas ang sarili niya, kundi nagpapakumbaba siya doon sa madla para magkaintindihan tayo lahat sa sarili nating kultura.

What’s the most stupid thing you’ve heard in the Senate?

There’s no one stupid thing. There are millions of stupid things I’ve heard in the Senate. But I like one particular answer, the best in the Senate. In the plenary session, there’s always a so-called debate because one person will introduce a bill and another person will question the bill as to its desirability. Sometimes, when a person who is sponsoring a bill is asked a question by another senator and the sponsor does not immediately know the answer, that person will simply say, “That’s a very good question; I like that.”

What are your top three pet peeves?

Maybe not top three, just one: the Senate.

If you can throw a one-liner to Pope Francis, what would it be?

Hi, sexy.

Why sexy?

Just to make him laugh, because everybody pulls such a long face when he’s around, everybody pretends to roll his eyes upward, to look very penitential or to look divine. People should put a little bit of humor in the lives of even the pope. He has shown by his issuances so far that he has a very progressive trend of thought. Those who have studied theology would know that we are either classified as radicals, conservatives, or progressive. I, personally, for example, would be classified as a progressive, and I think Pope Francis would classify as a progressive as well. I don’t think he will take offense.

On the wedding of Heart Evangelista and Sen. Francis Escudero:

Hindi siguro ako makakapunta, sinabi ko na, dahil ang kasal nila ay doon sa Balesin Island. Nahihirapan ako magbiyahe sa eroplano kaya nga I haven’t been out of the country for almost a year now. It’s bad for my health.

On her next book:

This one was Stupid is Forever. Maybe the next one will be about morons. There’s a difference, you know.

I just want to say that I did not expect na ganito karaming tao ang darating sa ganitong oras, dahil weekday ngayon eh. Miyerkules pa man din, pero sa palagay ko sobrang sa isang libo ang dumating ngayon.

This shows any one of the following things: (1) there is a dearth of humor and people appreciate humor; (2) they want politics to lighten up; or (3) they just want pictures to post on Facebook or anywhere else on social media, which is the best way of communicating these days.

Anyone who wants to run for president in 2016 must make sure to use social media in the proper way acceptable to the netizens. Otherwise, they will spurn him notwithstanding that he enters their domain. You have to communicate in a certain way. You don’t just enter social media for your own benefit.

Does the presence of a huge crowd here bolster your resolve to run for president?

Yes and no. Yes, because it shows that I have popular support, and no, in a way, because I am fully aware of the responsibilities that I will assume. People seem to have very very high expectations of me; it frightens even me. No person can meet all the expectations of all these young people, especially those who played hooky from school today, whom I tried to reprimand but who were faster than me in their repartees.

I’m going to think about it. First of all, I have to get rid of the last few vestiges of cancer. I am in remission, as they say. The cancer is no longer in its original strong state; it is now in a very weak state. Still, I have to be in the best of health if I will be president of the Philippines because there are so many things that have to be done simultaneously.

What is your advice to the unwise, in the context of Stupid is Forever?

The advice is to keep on reading. There are studies about the gains of reading from print and reading from e-books, and it appears that the gains from reading are all to be gained from print instead of e-books. I don’t know if that’s correct or if there’s just some propaganda war going on, but all people should always be encouraged to read.

I did very well in school because we had a free library in my hometown. I used to walk two miles and I had to borrow books under the name of my mother because I was underage. I was supposed to be 12 years old and I started borrowing books when I was only nine years old. I had to walk back and forth, which entailed some sacrifice on my part. But it was all worth it. I decided when I entered the room that I will finish reading all the books clockwise, and I did.

SENATE TO CONDUCT HEARING ON EDCA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, said she will call a public hearing on the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) on Monday, December 1, to pass upon whether the Senate should concur with the agreement.

The hearing will address the following topics:

• Does the EDCA need to be concurred in by the Senate;

• Is it necessary?

• Is it beneficial?

• Is it practical?

According to Santiago, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation may be used as the basis of the EDCA hearing.

“The rules state that formal inquiries or investigations may extend to any and all matters vested by the Constitution in Congress and/or in the Senate alone and that inquiries may be initiated by the Senate or any of its Committees if the matter is within its competence,” the senator said.

The senator further said that the mere fact that a petition against the constitutionality of the EDCA is pending before the Supreme Court does not prevent the Senate from conducting its own public hearing.

“Under the Senate Rules, no proceeding before any government agency can inhibit the Senate from conducting its own proceedings,” Santiago said.

Santiago cited Romero v. Estrada, 583 SCRA 396 (2009), where the Supreme Court held that “on-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation.”

The senator also clarified that the Senate is not restricted to hold a hearing for purposes only of concurrence. The committee can hold a public hearing which can be justified under the right to public information.

“If the hearing is within the purview of the treaty clause of the Constitution, it is for the purpose of finding out whether the treaty is to be considered valid and effective and the public hearing can come out with the information that the EDCA is subject to Senate concurrence. It does not mean that the Senate foreign relations committee will require the Senate to vote on concurrence,” Santiago explained.

Constitutionality of the EDCA

Santiago said the Senate hearing will also tackle the constitutional ban on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.

“Contrary to the claim that the EDCA does not involve the establishment of military bases, the EDCA gives the US rights of possession, control, and use over areas of Philippine territory described as ‘Agreed Locations,” she said. “These rights amount to the maintenance of military bases in the Agreed Locations.”

She said the EDCA allows the maintenance of military bases in the country, which cannot be done without the approval of the Senate.

On Senate concurrence of the EDCA

Santiago said that under the Constitution, the authority of the Senate to concur on a treaty is the decisive measure to make the EDCA constitutional, if at all, the Senate will express concurrence. If the Senate does not concur, then the treaty does not become a law.

“The Constitution is categorical. It requires Senate concurrence whether the document is called a treaty or any other international agreement,” the senator said.

EDCA as implementing the MDT and VFA

The senator clarified that the EDCA cannot be viewed as an implementing agreement of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

“In international law, there is no such thing as an implementing treaty especially in our Constitution. Every treaty has to be on the basis on Constitutional requirement, whether implementing or not,” Santiago said.

Santiago added that the concurrence requirement for the EDCA is different from the requirements of the MDT. The EDCA may not fall under the prohibition if it is subject to Senate concurrence.

“The MDT is only for the purpose of making the treaty Philippine law but the concurrence requirement for EDCA is for the purpose of saving the treaty from the prohibition in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25,” the senator said.

EDCA as an executive agreement is an impeachable offense

According to Santiago, there are similar acts connected with the EDCA that may be grounds for impeaching the president.

“The president, by agreeing to the EDCA, can be held accountable for impeachable offenses. These are culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, for allowing a foreign government to maintain military bases without Senate concurrence,” the senator said.

Solgen not arguing based on law

“The Solgen is not arguing based on law, he is arguing on political nuances,” Santiago said.

Hilbay reportedly said that “the Senate’s silence is a nuanced affirmation of the powers of the President” to enter into EDCA.

Santiago also took umbrage from the alleged statement made by Solicitor General Florin Hilbay that the fact that no senator joined the petitioners in having the Supreme Court declare the EDCA unconstitutional might be a sign that they agreed to the agreement.

Santiago said there is no law requiring any senator to intervene in any hearing before any tribunal in the country.

“We initially desisted from conducting hearings out of interdepartmental comity with the Supreme Court. We did not signify consent to the EDCA. We merely signified courtesy and respect,” Santiago said.

According to the senator, what will transpire in the public hearing may assist the Supreme Court in suggesting some approaches to resolve what the Supreme Court has indicated as its dilemma.

MIRIAM: DEFENSE OF ‘PORK, SAVINGS’ FLAWED

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago on Thursday slammed defenders of the 2015 budget for using flawed arguments to push for the retention of pork barrel-like funds and the redefinition of “savings.”

Santiago said that while Budget Sec. Florencio “Butch” Abad insisted the proposed budget is free of pork barrel, he also confirmed that prior consultations have been conducted with legislators to identify priority projects.

“In other words, there may be no separate item called Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), but the funds have already been built into the proposed 2015 budget,” Santiago said.

“These funds, regardless of the name, may be considered pork barrel, because they are national funds used for local projects selected by legislators, and they are granted in lump sums.”

Santiago added that the General Appropriations Bill (GAB) being pushed by the executive might be a form of class legislation, as she asked whether all lawmakers were consulted or only a select few.

The constitutionality of so-called insertions resulting from prior consultations is also questionable, Santiago said, noting that they open opportunities for post-budget enactment interventions.

“If legislators may identify preferred constituents before a program can be implemented, then it becomes post-budget enactment intervention, the same kind the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional,” the senator said.

Also bordering on unconstitutional, Santiago said, is the redefinition of “savings,” which allows the government to declare savings “at any time.”

House leaders have claimed that they have deleted this clause in their version of the proposed budget, but Santiago explained that it still appears in the second to the last line of Section 68 (b) of the Senate finance committee version.

“This means that if a project costing P10 million were awarded early in the year for only P9 million, there would be P1 million left. The remaining amount could be declared savings even before the end of the year,” Santiago said.

“It should only be after the project has been completed rather than awarded that savings may be identified, since change orders or project modifications can take place during project execution,” she added.

Santiago also criticized the DBM for being haphazard with the budget, saying that it is not sound budget practice to include projects which are not yet ready for implementation or to give lump sums to be followed by details later.

“Clearly, the DBM is the source of the redefinition of savings. The House merely said yes,” the senator said, adding that the agency submitted to the House a bill to redefine savings in the manner it has been defined in the GAB.

In a privilege speech on Monday, 24 November, Santiago raised concern over savings and pork barrel, which she called “dangerous minefields leading to corruption” in the 2015 budget.

She also urged her colleagues not to approve the House version of the budget unless the redefinition of “savings” is removed, and unless government agencies, especially the DBM, are compelled to break down lump-sum items.

WILL THE 2016 CANDIDATES COMMIT PLUNDER?

By SENATOR MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

(Speech delivered at the PILLARS Lecture Series Year 3 sponsored by the Junior Public Relations Practitioners of the Philippines of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila on 27 November 2014, at the university gym.)

Causes of Corruption

By the end of this year, we shall enter into the campaign period for the 2016 elections. With so many pending cases for plunder and corruption against high-profile political leaders, common sense dictates that as scholars, we need to examine the culture of corruption: its sources, its mind-sets, and whether the candidates we vote for might present a profile of corruption as a work in progress.

It will surprise you to know that in the entire Asia, one country has the highest number of anti-corruption measures – this country is the Philippines. And yet, according to the 2013 Corruption Perception Index, among 177 countries, the Philippines is ranked No. 94. The Philippines was among the first countries to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in 2006. Yet, it has been estimated that the Philippine economy losses at least 20 percent of our annual national budget to corruption. Naturally, corruption limits the ability of public officials to improve the economy with the use of foreign aid.

According to one expert, there are at least four sources of corruption. The first source of corruption is vicarious learning, during which people follow the examples of their leaders. The second source is what psychiatrists call the principle of desensitization, meaning that plunder starts with small cases of graft. Once you begin to accept petty corruption, you become desensitized to it. This source should make us reflect and strive to show integrity even in the most simple things.

The third source of corruption is rationalization, meaning that people justify their behavior in ways such as the following:

Depersonalization, by saying that “victims deserve corruption.”
Selective weighting, by saying “I am not so bad.”
Dire need, by saying “the end justifies the means.” Or
The metaphor of the ledger, by saying “my good works offset corrupt acts.”

The fourth source of corruption is learned helplessness, which happens when an honest person enters government but becomes socialized to perform and accept the corrupt practices. For example, members of Congress will eventually discover that they can gather more power for themselves by cutting illegal deals. This learned helplessness is aggravated by the lack of reinforcement.

Public officials in our country, both at the national and the local levels, engage in corruption because our anti-corruption laws so far in most cases are not actually implemented, and those who are guilty are not punished as they deserve. A study made by an expert showed that Filipinos believe corruption is difficult to eradicate, precisely because it is those in power who engage in it, or because the problem is too deeply rooted to change.

Corrupt Personality Traits

Let us examine the personalities of certain people who this early are already mentioned as potential candidates for president, vice-president, senator, or local government officials. How can we tell whether the candidate will likely commit plunder and corruption if elected to office? We should watch out for the following personality traits:

Watch out for the trait of Machiavellianism. This refers to a mind-set characterized by manipulation and the need for power.
Watch out for the trait of narcissism, which refers to an inflated sense of self-importance and grandiosity;
Watch out for subclinical psychopathy, which results from an aggregate of maladaptive trait deficits linked to antisocial deviance.
Watch out for weak moral identity and primitive moral thinking as exhibited by the candidate who values personal loyalty over formal rules and does not distinguish between organizational and personal goals.

In short, let me summarize the character traits of candidates prone to plunder:

Highly neurotic individuals
Future orientation
Power distance
Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance
Social dominance orientation

Moral disengagement, which is defined as the propensity of the individual to evoke cognitions which restructure one’s actions to appear less harmful, minimize one’s understanding or responsibility for one’s action, or attenuate the perception of the distress one causes others. Sometimes this person commits an act of corruption by morally disengaging himself from the corruption by justifying the act using palliative comparisons. For example, the person linked to plunder will continue to receive kickbacks, on the reasoning that the kickback is very little compared with earnings of a convicted plunderer. Another method to assuage the conscience is to avoid using the word “bribe” and using euphemistic labels such as padulas or pameryenda.

The most notorious act of plunder in our country is the abuse of the pork barrel system. If you hear a candidate saying certain things, you can be sure he will commit plunder if given the opportunity. The potential plunderer will likely say things such as:

This is a legitimate government process of long-standing.
The consequences are minimal and my practice will speed up and directly deliver services to my constituents.

I am not abusing the people’s money but I am using what is due to me and intended to be distributed among my constituents.

These examples show that the corrupt public official negates the shared rules and norms of the social culture.

How to Choose the President

It is unfair to generalize by saying that people in developing countries like the Philippines are more likely prone to corruption than in developed countries. The truth of the matter is that corruption is more widespread in developing economies simply because of poverty, low public sector salaries, little accountability, and poorly enacted laws and principles of ethics. Notwithstanding the plethora of laws passed by the Philippines against corruption, it has become institutionalized and accepted.

Corruption in our country is not necessarily associated with the conscious intent to be unethical or immoral. Rather, corruption is schematic, because it has become a routine practice in the conduct of daily business. This is why it is of the utmost importance to choose the best possible president and other national officials in the 2016 elections. Many studies show that one of the most critical aspects of culture is the moral tone and examples set by leadership. Unfortunately, unethical leaders tend to attract more attention than an ethical one, and unethical leaders tend to influence employee behaviour.

As members of the educated sector of society, it is your duty to examine with logic and reason the various candidates who will present themselves. Authorities say that when we give power to good people, they are more able than others to enact moral identity, meaning do what is right. The best way to identify the best president is to develop a sense of moral identity – meaning the degree to which you think it is important to your sense of self to be caring, compassionate, fair, generous, etc., shaped by your response to feelings of power.

It is an axiom that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But this is not the entirely correct. Power does not corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. Therefore, you must examine every candidate and ensure that he or she is equipped with a record of academic excellence, professional excellence, and achievements recognized on the national level or even international level. It is the character and political will of the next president that will determine whether we can rise to the challenge of the day, and take the following action:

We should provide more protection for whistleblowers.
We should grant more transparency and access to information.
We should strengthen our weak political party systems.
We should reduce the involvement of politicians in appointment systems.
We should reduce the excessive power of the executive branch.
We need to rationalize government bureaucracy.
We need to raise wages of those in government.
We need to improve enforcement, investigatory, and prosecution ability of law-enforcement agencies.

Conclusion

Is there something that you can do as an individual? Definitely, yes. Here are the ways by which you can shape popular communication to help combat the culture of corruption:

Highlight role models and those who fight against corruption in order to counteract stereotypes, instead of simply managing the public images of politicians;
Help educate the Filipino voter on the character of candidates and ensure they select those with integrity and political will;
Advocate for reform in our systems and structures through media in general, and in social media in particular.

At the same time that we have to prepare ourselves for the great battle for good government that looms with the 2016 elections, in the end it is always good to call on God’s protection.

In the words of the poet:

May the road rise to meet you.

May the wind ever be at your back.

May the Good Lord keep you

in the hollow of His hand.

May your heart be as warm

as your hearthstone.

And when you come to die

may the wail of the poor

be the only sorrow

you’ll leave behind.

May God bless you always.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER ASPECTS OF 2015 BUDGET

By SENATOR MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

(Privilege speech on 24 November 2014)

Introduction

The layman wants to know two things about the 2015 budget. The first question is: In the form of so-called savings, can the President still transfer an appropriation from one agency to another? The answer is yes. The second question is: Does the 2015 budget still contain pork barrel, meaning lump-sum funds to be spent at the discretion of the legislators? The second answer is also yes. In other words, the 2015 budget which contains two dangerous minefields leading to corruption, is not what people expect. It is what administration candidates expect. What this Senate should do in order to meet citizen expectation will be listed at the end of this speech.

Definition of “Savings” Unconstitutional

The Constitution uses the term “savings,” without defining it. We all know that this function is left for the Supreme Court to discharge. The Constitution provides: “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriation; however, (certain officials) may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

If a legal term is left undefined, it is used in the ordinary sense, not the technical sense. In its ordinary sense, the term “savings” means sums of money saved on a regular basis, often by means of economizing. However, the 2015 budget invents its own definition of savings in Sections 67 to 70, particularly Section 68, which provides that savings can be declared at any time for whatever might be considered “justifiable reasons.”

Let me compare the 2011 budget with the 2015 budget to show how lax the definition of savings has become. In the 2011 budget, Section 69 gave the meaning of savings and augmentation as follows: “Savings refer to portions or balances . . . which are (i) still available after the cancellation or final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity, or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized. . . .”

Compare the 2011 definition with this definition in the 2015 budget, where Section 68 provides: “Savings refer to the portions or balances . . . from any of the following: and I paraphrase: “(a) discontinuance or abandonment of the program, activity, or project . . . which would render it not possible for the agency to implement the said P/A/P at anytime.” Again I paraphrase: Savings is “non-commencement of the P/A/P within the first semester of 2015.”

To summarize, the use of savings under the 2015 budget is broader. The old definition referred to final discontinuance or abandonment. The new definition refers to discontinuance or abandonment at any time.

As a humble student of constitutional law, allow me to observe that the new definition is unconstitutional for being over-broad and for being vague. Under the overbreadth doctrine, if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, it can be struck down on its face because of its chilling effect. Here what we seek to protect is not freedom of expression, but the congressional power of the purse. Under the void for vagueness doctrine, a criminal statute is required to state explicitly and definitely what acts are prohibited or restricted. Here the vagueness doctrine seeks to preclude arbitrary enforcement by the executive branch of the spending power given to Congress.

There are two cases of dangerous minefields in this budget.

First Case: The use of savings under the new definition is broader. The use of savings under the old definition talks of final discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity, or purpose for which the appropriation is authorized. The new definition talks simply of discontinuance or abandonment at any time (it could be during the first month, first quarter, first half). A deferral of a project can be construed as discontinuance or abandonment; the same project may be resubmitted for congressional authorization next year or two years from now. This contravenes the constitutional mandate of Congress to authorize appropriations but may later be declared by the DBM Secretary as abandoned, at its whims and caprices, and then he may use the appropriations for another project which has not been previously authorized by Congress but which falls within the more general P/A/P.

Second Case: After the first semester (two quarters), an agency that fails to obligate any allotment in its own budget loses it. What the agency loses, Secretary Abad gains. What happens to the agency heads’ commitment to Congress that they will deliver a specified level of outputs (number of school buildings, completion rate, kilometers of roads, linear meters of bridges and so on)? What if Projects X, Y, and Z were funded out of “savings” but were substituted for Congress-authorized but DBM-discontinued projects A, B, and C, would that not violate the power of Congress to authorize appropriations consistent with the recent Supreme Court decision on DAP? What if X, Y, and Z are entirely new projects? How would the general public know that such substitution took place? Monitoring of projects will be extremely difficult which may open up opportunities for corruption.

Pork Barrel Remains

In the 2014 budget, the term PDAF was conspicuously avoided. But the non-appearance of the term PDAF was merely illusory, the P25.4 billion worth of pork transferred to five agencies with legislators still in control of the projects. The same thing is happening in the 2015 budget.

Let me raise a BIG question about the 2015 budget. Last summer, why were representatives asked to submit lists of projects they endorsed for their districts? I understand that the form distributed did not bear any letterhead.

In the 2015 budget, no less than P37.3 billion worth of projects are allocated to the following agencies:

DPWH with P18.369 billion for “Land Infrastructure Program”

DOH

DSWD

DOLE

CHED

Errata

Reportedly, the Department of Budget and Management submitted to the House of Representatives alleged errata consisting of 269 pages and composed of additions, realignments, insertions, and typographical errors, in all amounting to P4.7 billion, consisting of, among others:

P3.87 billion for the APEC Conference

P998.8 million for the Bureau of Customs

P296.9 million for the Department of Tourism

The 269 pages of errata are solid proof that DBM has been haphazard with the budget.

Recommendations

Retain the original definition of savings. Sections 68-69 prescribe the use of savings, meaning of savings and augmentation, and priority in the use of savings. The insertion of the phrase “at any time” in section 68(a) totally changes the meaning of the word “savings”. Savings does not happen “at any time”, it happens under conditions described in the original meaning of savings, as stated in the general provisions.

Section 68(b) on the matter of non-commencement of a program, activity, or project (P/A/P) within one semester constitutes another change in the original meaning of savings. It drastically cuts short the period during which savings can be rationally declared. Savings are usually declared toward the end of the year, not at the middle.

The redefinition of savings demolishes and overturns not only the constitutional and legislated meaning of savings; it goes against the generally accepted meaning of the word itself. We might be the only country in this world which declares savings “at any time” and “non-commencement within six months”. Since the private sector has a different meaning of savings, books on accounting, auditing, and financial management will have to be changed.

There will be confusion between the private sector and the public sector in the Philippines; there will also be confusion with other countries because

their definition will be the standard definition and ours is the result of an effort to take over the power of the purse.

The most important reason is to save Congress’ power of the purse. Through the years, Congress’ power of the purse has been steadily eroded, diminished, and reduced – all with the consent and cooperation of Congress. Whatever is left has to be saved.

Senate should not approve the budget unless the offensive redefinitions are removed.


Because of the importance and significance of the issue of redefinition of savings, senators should explain their votes so the public can be guided in 2016.

In the Lower House, only those who were opposed to the redefinition of savings and the GAB 2015 explained their votes. Those who will say “yes” in the Senate should also explain why they will shoot themselves, not only in the foot, but also in the heart. They have to explain why they will commit an act which is inimical to their own institution.

The Senate should also compel government agencies to comply with the reportorial requirements in Section 91 of the general provisions, especially the second paragraph, which requires DBM to report on lump sums. So far, DBM has not been complying with this requirement.
Put the P2,690,684,000 appropriations for the socio-economic component of the normalization process for DA, DepEd, CHED, DOH, DSWD, TESDA, and OPPAP to the Unprogrammed Appropriations. Reason: It has no legal basis. The BBL has yet to pass Congress, and even if passed into law, has to be ratified in a plebiscite spanning the area of ARMM and nearby regions.
DILG should focus on its mandates which are: to supervise local government units and to secure the life and property of every Filipino, no matter where they live, in urban centers or rural areas, and no matter what their political colors are, whether they are friends or foes.
Restrict the use of savings from Special Purpose Funds, especially the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF) and the Pension and Gratuity Fund (PGF). DBM might have bloated the budget for the MPBF and the PGF with the intention of using the ‘fat’ as a source for additional discretionary spending.

THE MOST HONEST SENATOR I EVER KNEW

By

SENATOR MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

(Eulogy for Senator Juan Flavier at the Philippine Senate, 17 November 2014.)

Juan Martin Flavier was my best friend in the Senate, and possibly the most honest senator I knew.

He was born in Tondo, Manila but grew up in Baguio. He was a bright student and graduated valedictorian in both grade school and high school. He graduated Bachelor of Science from the University of the Philippines and placed at the top of his class, thus qualifying him as a member of the Phi Kappa Phi International Honor Society. In addition, he was admitted as a member of the Alpha Epsilon Delta international honor society for the advancement of research.

Subsequently, he graduated Doctor of Medicine also at the University of the Philippines. Naturally he trained at U.P. Philippine General Hospital, where he was named outstanding intern. Some nine years later, he earned the degree Masters in Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University in the United States.

Sen. Juan Flavier served as doctor to the barrios in Nueva Ecija and Cavite. He was recognized and rewarded with his appointment as president of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, and a year later as president of the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. It did not come as a surprise that the Philippine Jaycees gave him the Award for TOYM (or Ten Outstanding Young Men). The U.P. Alumni Association followed suit by naming him as Most Distinguished Alumnus.

In a much-applauded move, in 1992 he was appointed health secretary. Sec. Flavier launched public health programs that captivated the public with his catchy, media-savvy slogans. His American alma mater recognized his achievements as a Filipino public servant by awarding him a gold medal for marked distinction in public health.

On the strength of his rock-star status, he won as senator in the 1995 elections. In all, he served two terms. He endeared himself to all committee chairs when they needed another senator to form the quorum of two senators for a public hearing. No matter what the committee or subject was, the genial Sen. Flavier made himself available every single day of the week for a quorum, as if it was his duty.

Johnny and I were both neophyte senators in the same year. Hardly had the dust settled from the campaign, when I rose in a privilege speech to denounce pork barrel kickbacks, which in that simpler time consisted of 10 percent of the public funds involved. I heatedly said that right after I was proclaimed senator, a series of contractors asked for appointments. I had just been named laureate of the Magsaysay Award for Government Service, with a citation “for bold and moral leadership in cleaning up a graft-ridden government agency.”

Despite my highly publicized Asian award for honesty, the individual contractors minced no words. Their offers were the same: if I turned over my pork barrel funds, they would build the public works project, take care of the incidental bribes that were part of the process, and guarantee that I would receive a 10-percent kickback. I would not need to sign anything – as some of them said: “Malinis ang kikitain.”

I was so insulted and outraged that I rushed to the Senate to denounce the system, expecting that my colleagues would leap to their feet and confirm my narrative. But, foolish me, after my speech there was no interpellation and no comment from anybody. Nobody spoke. Except for one man – Sen. Juan Flavier. With an offended expression, he rose to affirm my accusation of corruption in the Senate. If Sen. Flavier did not have the courage and the purity of heart to support my story of corruption, I would have made no impact. Because of Sen. Flavier’s comment, the media picked up the story.

When I was sometimes tired or bored or downhearted, I would saunter to Johnny’s desk and engage him in a chat, confident that I was sharing a companionable time with an honest man; a good man; a great man.

In conclusion, since Juan Martin Flavier was a scholarly man who sought knowledge from universities abroad, allow me to quote from the poem entitled “Dominus Illuminatio Mea,” the Oxford motto which means “God be my light:”

In the hour of death, after this life’s whim,

When the heart beats low, and the eyes grow dim,

And pain has exhausted every limb –

The lover of the Lord shall trust in Him.