Press Release
August 13, 2007

Transcript of interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

On the JPEPA:

Under the Rules of the Senate, if legislative business was unfinished at the end of a certain Congress, then that legislative business must start all over again during the new Congress. There was a referral of the JPEPA from Malacañang to the Senate during the last Congress, but now they must do the referral all over again. When I checked this morning, it still hasn't been referred by Malacañang to the Senate, so I cannot even act on it. Further, the Senate is still in the process of organizing its committees. There is no committee of foreign relations yet. I will schedule JPEPA for public hearing because I am ready with my notices, which outline how I will discuss the two-foot high JPEPA document. I am also ready with my list of resource persons. I am ready to set it for hearing on the first Thursday after it has been formally referred to my committee during the plenary session.

On the proposed amnesty bill:

The Amnesty program is defective because for one, it is an oxymoron to speak of an all encompassing amnesty. Second, the procedure under the Constitution is for the President to issue an executive proclamation and then for Congress merely to concur by majority vote. Third, it is a question whether President Estrada and Senator Trillanes will accept the amnesty because it will not apply automatically to them. They have to accept it, and I don't know if they will accept it because under the current jurisprudence of our Supreme Court, meaning to say under the latest decided case, "acceptance of an amnesty is an admission of guilt." Do you remember President Estrada said "I will never accept a pardon after conviction because I will not accept that I am guilty." Amnesty in the modern view is nothing but collective pardon. And then there is another defect in the statement in amnesty, the claim is that this an all-encompassing amnesty as contra-distinguished from the 1994 amnesty which is limited only to insurgence. That simply is factually untrue. The 1994 amnesty was amended by the 1996 amnesty which apply to all criminals being held because of their political beliefs and that statement is even followed by about two dozens examples of what are political offenses. The paradigmatic political offenses are rebellion, insurrection, sedition, and coup d' etat. I don't know how they can possibly include President Estrada since he is waiting for judgment in his plunder charge. Plunder is not a political offense.

Finally, the report says that the amnesty will apply to all enemies of the state. There is no such thing in Philippine law. Maybe you can say enemy belligerent if the Filipino is siding with a country with which we are at war, but that situation is not obtaining. Or you can say public enemy if they are citizens of a country with which we are at war, but we are not at war with any country. Or you can use public enemy to refer to criminals who are notorious and who always succeed in eluding arrest. I don't know what they mean by enemy of the state.

I have no objection to amnesty per se, but we must remember that under the latest cases decided by our Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that if a person is innocent, he should not accept amnesty. Amnesty is an admission of guilt.

News Latest News Feed