MIRIAM SAYS VFA “NECESSARY IMPOSITION” IN MULTIPOLAR WORLD
27 May 1999

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, calling the VFA “a necessary imposition,” explained her  “yes” vote by saying that the Philippines needs to make a choice between the US and Japan on the one hand, or China on the other hand.

“As a Third World country, the Philippines is vulnerable.  We need an ally among the major powers in Asia.  China has a dispute with us over the Spratly Islands.  That leaves only the US and Japan,” she said.

Santiago described contemporary international relations as “an altered political configuration, from a bipolar to a multipolar world.”

She said that in 1991, when the Senate refused to extend the RP-US military bases agreement, there were only two centers of power -- US and USSR.

Santiago explained that by contrast, today there are several centers of powers, and in Asia there are three -- US, Japan, and China.

“The Senate should concur with the VFA, not because we love the US, but because we fear some of our neighbors,” she said.

Santiago said the Philippines should remain an ally of the US, because the US “remains at the helm of the strongest network of military alliances in the Asia-Pacific.”

She pointed out that in 1996, Japan renewed its own defense pact with the US.

Santiago said the US proved it would honor treaty commitments, when in 1996 it sent battleships to the Taiwan Straits, after China conducted so-called military exercises there, on the eve of Taiwan national elections.

She said another reason for her vote was that the VFA will bring economic advantages.

“In international politics, there has been a paradigm shift from geo-politics to geo-economics,” she said.
 Santiago said the VFA would help the Estrada administration to reduce defense spending, and instead use public funds to solve our Third World problems like immunizations, safe water, and education.

“With the  VFA, the US will have to share the defense burden,” she said.
 But Santiago also warned the US to “stop preaching down to Asia, or falling into brash lapses of foreign policy.”

‘LITTLE MIRIAMS’  DEMAND CHANGE
17 May 1999

Believe it or not.

After undergoing a series of lectures and engaging in group dynamics in the past month under the tutelage of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, 40 college students from the country’s leading schools ably crafted their own bills and penned resolutions on topics ranging from consumers’ rights to environment protection.
Santiago was elated over the overwhelming performance of the participants at her Summer sa Senado student internship program designed to train and expose the youth to legislative work.  She is planning to introduce some of the interns’ bills and resolutions at the Senate on their behalf.

“The country can be assured of a fresh crop of legislators,” Santiago said.  “I hope that through this program I was able to ignite the youth’s interest and zeal for government service.”

According to Santiago, the interns underwent an intensive training with lessons in bill drafting and the functions and powers of the Senate.  The students also had their own “Senate sessions” in which they interpellated each other’s works.  Twice, they visited the Senate to attend public hearings and witness the plenary sessions.

Santiago handed the Best Bill award to a group who drafted a bill called the “Exact Change Act”, seeking to punish deceitful businesses that don’t give consumers exact change. She is presently studying the possibilty of fi.

Transfer interrupted! e proposal seeks to penalize first time offenders with a P5,000 fine; for second time offenders, the penalty of P10,000 and a suspension of license for three months shall be imposed; and third time offenders will be slapped with a P25,000 fine and revocation of license.

“Like their parents, students are also coping with the economic hardships.  They must make the most out of their weekly allowances,” she said.  “If big businesses don’t give exact change because it amounts to only 10 or 25 centavos, then perhaps the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas should stop producing small-denominated coins.”

The other bills presented by the participants also reflect strongly on the concerns of today’s youth, namely: mandatory teaching of children’s rights and welfare to students in primary school; incorporation of environmental awareness subject in school; establishment of  a national park system; institution of a Council on Waste Management to formulate a waste segregation scheme; and the transfer of ROTC classes to summer.

As a token of appreciation, the interns gave Santiago a resolution urging the Senate to institutionalize her Summer sa Senado training program.

The internship attracted students from different schools such as Adamson University, Arellano University, Ateneo de Manila University, Central Colleges of the Philippines, College of the Holy Spirit, De La Salle University, Miriam College, Notre Dame College in Cotabato City, PUP, and UP.

In fact, after the Inquirer  first reported about the program last month, Santiago’s office received several calls from students who wanted to participate but failed to meet the deadline. The students even went as far as making reservations for next summer’s slots.

Maricarl Ong of DLSU and Mary Ann Curameng of Ateneo were named the most outstanding interns.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, listed as one of the public officials whose phones are allegedly tapped, dismissed as “pure hokum” the current wiretapping scare in Metro Manila.

She also urged Pres. Estrada as chair of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission, to tap the wires of suspected crooks in government.

Santiago said the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, headed by Panfilo Lacson, does not have the capability to tap some 300 phones simultaneously, as claimed by certain quarters.

“In the United States, in 1994, the average cost of a wiretap was some $67,000, which translates to some P2.7 million.  It’s just too costly for a developing country like ours,” she said.

Santiago also said that in the  US, the annual average is only 900 wiretaps at both the federal and state levels.

“We are still in the pre-digital era, and the cost of labor-intensive wiretaps is an economic deterrent.  It is too expensive for secret agents to listen to conversations and then transcribe them,” she said.

Santiago is the former head of a law enforcement agency, having been immigration commissioner, for which she received several professional awards.

Further, Santiago pointed out that wiretapping can now be prevented by  means of cryptography.

Santiago, who studied computer law at Harvard University, defined cryptography as “the encoding of information, so that only the intended recipient has the ability to understand its meaning.”

“The best way to protect the privacy and security of electronically transmitted information is cryptography,” she said.

Santiago said encryption protects voice communications, such as cellphone conversations; ATM transactions, by protecting your passwords; and email, so that your messages go only to the intended recipients.

“Pres. Estrada will have to decide the struggle over cryptography policy.  Since ciphertext can only be decoded by a key, the PAOCTF needs access to the keys,” she said.

“Wiretapping is a tool that diminishes the value of communications to criminals,” said Santiago, a former RTC judge and award-winning graftbuster.

Santiago said the law should limit wiretaps to certain crimes such murder, kidnapping, extortion, gambling, counterfeiting, and sale of dangerous drugs.

She emphasized that a court order is required for the installation of a tap.

Santiago said that after a court orders a wiretap, the law enforcement agency asks the communications service provider to execute the tap.

She enumerated the main wiretap locations as follows:
 *  Microphones in telephone handsets that can also transmit to a remote receiver;
 *  Telephone boxes in building basements;
 *  Lines outside the house;
 *  Telephone pole junction boxes near the target of the surveillance;
 *  Lines running from a telephone company central office, where the location switch equipment is located, to a monitoring station in a government office.

She said that the more common technique in the Philippines is for the police to run a wiretap from the PLDT central office to the police office.

“The law enforcement community views wiretaps as essential, and even indispensable in certain cases,” she said.

Santiago said that surveillance wiretapping is an importance investigative technique in cases where the crime is partially hidden, as in cases of graft and corruption.

“Wiretapping attacks the captains of the crime industry, goes after government corruption, and performs important anti-terrorists functions,” she said.

At the same time, Santiago warned that a legislative oversight committee on wiretapping should be established, because of the increasing amount of sensitive information circulating in electronic forms, including telephone conversations, fax messages, electronic mail, fund transfers, trade secrets, and health records.

“High technology makes us more vulnerable to potentially dangerous snooping -- not only by government, but also by business competitors, terrorists, nosy neighbors, hackers, and thieves,” she said.

She warned of potential reduction in personal privacy, with the advent of digital wiretapping.

“The potential for abuse is magnified by digital wiretapping, because it enables massive scanning of thousands of conversations by computers programmed to look for digital representations of keywords, such as “administration” or “opposition,” she said.

Santiago said that the Congress will be the main arena for the debate over cryptography, and the power of government to conduct surveillance in the digital age.

MIRIAM SLAMS NDF THREAT ON VFA
10 May 1999

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago challenged the National Democratic Front to join the public debate on the legal aspects of the Visiting Forces Agreement, instead of making what she called “criminal threats.”

Santiago was reacting to the NDF statement that it will break off peace talks with the government, if the Senate concurs with VFA.

“The VFA and the peace talks are disparate issues, and the NDF threat constitutes the crime of grave coercion under the Penal Code,” she said.

However, Santiago said criminal charges should not be filed against communist leader Jose Maria Sison, because both the public and the Senate will ignore his statement anyway.

“Under international law, the NDF are only insurgents, not belligerents.  Thus, they have nor rights under international law, and foreign states will simply ignore them,” she said.

Santiago said the  NDF fails to meet the three conditions for belligerency, which are: general instead of local hostilities, control of territory, and observance of the laws of war.

“If the NDF were belligerents, then the Senate should take their threat seriously.  But the NDF are merely insurgents and the Senate will therefore ignore the threat,” she said.

Santiago cited the Penal Code, Art. 286:”The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P6,000. shall be imposed upon any person who, without any authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threats, or intimidation, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.”

SENATE VFA DEBATE TACKLES LEGAL ISSUES
5 May 1999

The Senate debate on the VFA opened last Tuesday with a spirited exchange on whether the VFA will result in amending the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and other Philippine laws.

During the debate, Sen. Blas Ople, sponsor of the VFA resolution, and Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, who intervened on legal issues, said the VFA will not result in such amendments, but they were contradicted by Sen. Teofisto Guingona, Senate minority leader.

Guingona claimed the VFA will reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, because it will change the rules on criminal procedure to favor American servicemen, as well as other laws.

Santiago replied that the Constitution itself allows the VFA to become part of our domestic law, under Art. 2 Sec. 2 which provides: “The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.”

“The principle of pacta sunt servanda -- meaning treaties are legally binding -- is already part of the law of the land, as provided by our Constitution,” she said.

Santiago said that because the VFA would become part of the law of the land, there would be no need to amend the Constitution, the Rules of Court, or other Philippine laws affected by the VFA.

“The moment the Senate concurs, the VFA becomes part of the law in our country.  That’s what the Constitution itself says,” she explained.

However, Santiago also said that Congress reserves the right to pass laws implementing the VFA provisions on criminal procedure, taxation, and others.

“If the VFA is a self-executing treaty, then its provisions apply automatically.  But if the VFA is a non-self-executing treaty, then Congress must enact the necessary legislation first,” she said.

Santiago said it is the Supreme Court which has power to determine whether the VFA is self-executing or not.

“Whether a treaty is self-executing depends upon the intention of the signatory parties and the surrounding circumstances,” she said.

Santiago pointed out that the VFA itself fails to provide that it is self-executing.

The Senate debate last Tuesday took a humorous turn, when Sen. Ople complained that Sen. Guingona was asking too many legal questions, and was allegedly “turning the Senate into a classroom.”

Santiago then offered to answer the questions on law, and Ople adopted her legal explanations as the official legal views of the foreign relations committee.

MIRIAM BARES NEW HUBBARD LETTER RECOGNIZING VFA AS TREATY
3 May 1999

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago said the Visiting Forces Agreement complies with the requirement of the Philippine Constitution, as she bared a new letter from US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard declaring that under US law, the VFA is “recognized as a treaty.”

Hubbard’s letter dated only last Friday, April 30 to Santiago states: “As a matter of both US and international law, an international agreement like the VFA is legally binding on the  US Government.  In international legal terms such an agreement is a treaty.”

Santiago said the American ambassador’s statement will have the effect of refuting any constitutional objection to the VFA, and of rendering academic the anti-VFA petition in the Supreme Court.

In her privilege speech which opened the Senate debate on the VFA, Santiago, an international and constitutional law expert, said that the Hubbard statement is supported by a specific provision of the  US Constitution.

She said that the US Constitution, Article 6 provides that all US treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

“The VFA as a treaty will be part of the law of the land, meaning the US Constitution.  Thus, under American municipal law, the VFA is already recognized as a treaty.  Ambassador Hubbard’s statement is just an emphatic repetition  of what the US Constitution already provides,” she said.

Santiago said that as long as the VFA is “recognized as a treaty” under American law, it is unnecessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for ratification, as demanded by anti-VFA groups.

The anti-VFA groups demand US Senate consent, because of a provision in the Philippine Constitution.

The Philippine Constitution, Article 18 Section 25 provides: “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.”

Santiago admitted that the Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission shows that the commissioners who drafted Section 25 wanted the US Senate to consent to any future VFA, in the same way that the Philippine Senate will have to concur with the VFA.

“But the intention of the Constitutional Commission is not authoritative.  Only the Supreme Court has the power to give a final interpretation of Section 25,” she said.

Santiago said the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means “accepted as a treaty,” in the sense of being accepted as binding and obligatory under the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda (treaty obligations must be observed).

“The framers chose the wrong word.  They used the word ‘recognized.’  They should have used the word ‘made,’ because  under the  US Constitution, the US President has power to ‘make’ treaties, with the advice and consent of the  US Senate,” she said.

Santiago said the Senate debate should continue, despite a petition filed with the Supreme Court by three anti-VFA senators.

“The issue is not yet ripe for adjudication.  Hence, I predict that the Supreme Court will not issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and the Court will eventually dismiss the petition,” she said, as she urged the Senate to open the VFA debate yesterday.

Santiago cited her own case of Santiago v. Guingona,  decided last November, where the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the election of the Senate minority leader.

“The Supreme Court declined to change the minority leader, therefore the Court will decline to stop a Senate debate.  The principle is the same: judicial self-restraint,” she said.
 Last February, Santiago delivered a privilege speech warning that anti-VFA groups would question the VFA in the Supreme Court, if the Senate committees concerned failed to clear up the constitutional issue raised by the use of the phrase “recognized as a treaty.”

The joint committee report was filed last week by the Senate foreign relations committee and national defense committee, but the report did not fully explain in what way the VFA is “recognized as a treaty” by the  US.

Santiago’s privilege speech was in effect a technical lecture on the law of treaties. She cited the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which the  US state department has allegedly “recognized as the authoritative guide to current treaty law and practice.”

She also cited the latest textbooks used in Oxford and Cambridge universities in England.