Transcript of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago's interview

On the response of the government officials whom Santiago recommended ousted over the World Bank report

First, Sec. Teves apologized. Apology accepted. Then he explained that because his department does not have the resources or the legal jurisdiction, he immediately sent the copy of the World Bank initial report to the Ombudsman.

It appears now that the buck will pass to the Ombudsman. She has to explain why she did not act promptly as the Constitution orders on the complaint. In their own rules and procedure, the Office of the Ombudsman says it adopts the Rules of Court and Preliminary Investigation, which, if you examine, provides a more or less 45 days only for preliminary investigation. In fact, there's another rule in the Ombudsman's rules and procedure that it could take shorter because the Constitution keeps on emphasizing "promptly" or "expeditiously".

The normal reply when you question a delay in the judicial process is that it takes a long time to build a case. Though maybe so, that was taken into account when the rules of court were promulgated. Particularly in the case of the Ombudsman, the Constitution gives her the specific and unique power to subpoena the persons involved or the documents involved or to request assistance from the proper government agency. If she just needs to research the problem, she can ask the NBI or plant confidential informants there in [the Department of] Public Works. They can shadow the public court officials who are always meeting contractors and then you can build a case because you have the resources as Mr. Teves rightly pointed out and you have the necessary legal jurisdiction. I don't know why it took her [Ombudsman Gutierrez] so long. She should explain that to the public.

She still has to be responsible for her inaction or delay. I have been an RTC judge and I know for a fact that in the office of the prosecutor, we used to call them the fiscal, the maximum period there is 90 days. In fact, under the new Rules of Court, it is only 45 days.

Should the Ombudsman be impeached?

Yes. That is the logical consequence of the delay. She has to explain it satisfactorily, but I don't see, as a lawyer, what satisfactory explanation she could possibly give.

What are the possible violations of the Ombudsman?

That's a culpable violation of the Constitution because there is a specific constitutional provision there that you should be prompt and if she has not discharge that duty then she could be impeachable on that ground or betrayal of public trust.

Even a private person can file a complaint, but it has to be endorsed by at least one member of the House. That is already for the House..

Do you think the Ombudsman will be impeached?

I don't think so because Gutierrez is perceived to be close to the administration and the House of Representatives is controlled by the administration. I'm just pointing out in theory what should be done. If it is not carried out in practice, there is nothing I can do.

Will you still recommend impeachment of the Ombudsman?

Yes, that's my recommendation. It might not have a chance in reality, but still, I feel compelled to make it because of the facts involved.

How about Sec. Ebdane? Do you still seek his ouster?

Yes, he should be removed from the Cabinet. After all, the leadership demands responsibility. If he has authority, he has the responsibility to determine who among his people have been cooking up the bills together with the contractors.

My view is if you are leader of the institution and wrongdoing has been reported to you, then you should at least act on it in the sense of trying to identify who are the people in your department who are giving it a bad name. But if you are trying to stonewall it, that is, if you're just going to say, I cannot cite anybody responsible, then that is not acceptable.

On the contractors's link with the First Gentleman

First, Sen. Lacson presented what he allegedly claims to be the schedules calendar or appointments schedule of the First Gentleman. In a court of law, you have to authenticate a document. You have to show that that is a verified copy, that that is a genuine original or copy. There are ways of doing that. We can be liberal with respect to that but you cannot just accept the book as it is. There has to be some evidence that it truly is what it claims to be. And certainly, that is not sufficient evidence because it may be true that there are entries showing that he may have met with certain people, but the question still is, did those appointments take place. He needs an eyewitness.

Is the P70M mentioned in the hearing a hearsay?

Yes, of course. It has no probative value as of the moment.

On the other hand, if Sen. Lacson produces a link between Bayani Fernando of the MMDA, whom he mentioned yesterday of having sat on the project as well, we have to research what is the possible connection between Fernando and the World Bank project. It may be that certain sections of the road program financed by a loan from the World Bank were located inside Metro Manila.

I concur with Sen. Lacson if he has evidence. I will give Sen.. Lacson a reasonable period, maybe two weeks to produce his witness, then we will submit a report to the plenary session, which is the usual procedure.