Press Release
October 7, 2009

Transcript of Senate media interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

As you know, in Congress, all we do are pass the bold outline and then we give to the implementing agency the issuance of so-called implementing rules and regulations or IRR. This applies not only to the bills that we pass, but also in the Senate, to the treaties with which we concur. In this case, the treaty does not provide that the families of the victim or aggrieved person have to be notified of an obligation for transfer. So what the Department of Justice did, in my view, since I've seen their IRR, simply copied the treaty itself. They are at liberty to either just copy down the provision of the basic law or the treaty or to add more safeguards just so that all parties involved would be satisfied. I find that there is no culpable liability on the part of the Department of Justice.

But, if I were to be asked, just to be safe, it would be better id the IRR provides for a public hearing and provides necessarily and automatically for notice to the plaintiffs--the family of the deceased, or the family who brought the case. They are called the complainants. But they are not provided right now with the IRR. If that is so, there is no violation of any law because they are at liberty to implement the treaty as long as they do not significantly depart from its significant contours. But I think in the future, they should make sure that these families should not have these grievances which are being aired.

Under the treaty, which I sponsored as chair of the foreign relations committee, there are only two basic qualifications. One, the decision becomes final and executor, and that happens to be the case in Larrañaga. And two, all fines and other pecuniary sanctions have been waived. So there is no provision there in the treaty for a public hearing or for notice to the family of the victims but DOJ could have added that if they wanted to. If I were Secretary of Justice, I would have added that just to prevent any accusations that I have been one-sided or have not followed due process of law. Right now, it stands by itself and there is no criminal intent or violation there but I would rather that they should err on the side of safety. Out of an abundance of caution, they should have done that.

There is a provision in the treaty that if a person has been convicted here in our country, whenever we send a person abroad for transfer, that judgment can never be changed. And if it is a judgment of imprisonment, it can never be turned into just a payment of a fine.

Road users' tax will be used for emergency employment of 50,000 unemployed

That cannot be done. The law is very very clear: "It shall be used solely and exclusively"--that is the language of the law--only to carry out four objectives. But the main two are to maintain the roads and improve the drainage system. They are all connected with the fact of transportation. That's why it's called the Road Board. That cannot be possible unless there is a realignment made by Congress together.

In my original bill to appropriate the sum of P10B, I provided that the money should come from the road tax but only for the purpose of maintaining the roads and improving the drainage system because those were the main cause of the flooding. There was no maintenance at all of the drainage system in Metro Manila.

This year alone, we have projected that the Road Board will receive P9B from road users' tax. So why don't we just pass a joint resolution between the House and the Senate that we overrule ourselves and we use the money for flooding because anyway, flooding is an integral adverse result of the fact that drainage systems have not been properly maintained.

On Sen. Enrile's reaction on the supplemental budget

I was not referring to the Senate; that is up to the President. She has the power to impound. Impoundment means, it is a term invented in the United States, where the Congress already allocated certain sums of money but the President refuses to release the money. The Supreme Court ruled that an impoundment is not actionable, for that is within his discretion. So, we'd have to appeal to the president. That is just a concept that I am including on public debate on where we should get the money.

If it has already been appropriated then the president has the sole power to determine when the release should be made. That is the jurisprudence. But she must follow the law. If the fund is reserved for a certain purpose, then she can't release it as well. She has to follow the law, whatever law is involved. In the case of road users' tax, there is a Motor Vehicles Charge Act and there is a clear provision there that the money should be used solely and exclusively only for road related projects.

Can Jalosjos sue FVR

I wish. But the thing is, first, you cannot sue a public official in connection with official discharge of duty unless he committed it with such grave abuse of discretion that amounts to excess or lack of jurisdiction. So if it is just in the routine performance of duty then you have no actionable basis, not even for a civic case for damages.

On the case of president Clinton, their Supreme Court ruled that he could be sued even he is president but that was because the case did not arise from a discharge of his official functions but the conduct of a sexual liaison with another woman. That was only a civil case that did not have anything to do with his discharge of duties. I'm afraid that is not feasible.

That is the problem with the supplemental budget. After I filed it, I realized that the deadline for our break is already upcoming. Wednesday would be our last working day before our next break. So we would not be able to accomplish a supplemental budget in the limited period that we've got left. That's why we got to think how we could raise a billion or even more for other means.

News Latest News Feed