Interview transcript – 22 March 2011

We are going on caucus so we can discuss privately among ourselves what should be the amendment to the present Senate rules on impeachment, which is virtually only a copy of the United States Senate manual on impeachment. So my first recommendation is palitan na lang ang Ingles dahil masyadong luma na ang gamit nilang Ingles.

With respect to the rules themselves, these are my proposed amendments:

Number one, we must accept that the impeachment is a very serious process. Remember, when we were impeaching a president, we are not only removing him from office and disqualifying from entering any future office, but we are also rescinding the will of the electorate that put him in office. In the political aspect, what should govern the impeachment process in the Senate should be, among others, the provision in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials which says we should observe political neutrality. So I humbly propose that the rule should be principled political neutrality. We must expound on the political aspect by teaching our senators they should observed principled political neutrality.

Continue reading

Interview transcript – 21 March 2011

On the Blue Ribbon committee hearing earlier this morning

The right against self-incrimination—in other words, the right not to testify against yourself—has two categories. Number one, the right against self-incrimination by the accused himself, and number two, the right against self-incrimination by a mere witness. If the accused himself altogether refused to testify, he can just say “I don’t want to testify” or “I don’t want to take the witness stand”, that is his right and it is recognized by our Constitution because there is a constitutionally protected right against self-incrimination for reasons of policy and for reasons of humanity. If you are a witness, that is a different story. You have to take the witness stand, you have to testify, and you cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination.

In the case of the Ligot couple, remember they are the accused. So if their lawyer produced more neurons in his brain, he would have advised the couple not to take the stand absolutely because that is their right. But they took the witness stand, so in effect they have waived their right to self-incrimination. They could now be forced to testify. They waived it because their lawyer did not counsel them otherwise. It will be the Blue Ribbon committee that will decide on whether the invocation of the right against self-incrimination is correct or not, so let them decide it.

With respect to the answer “I cannot remember”, there is a difference between the phrase “I cannot remember” and the phrase “It will tend to incriminate me”. The phrase “It will tend to incriminate me” excuses the witness but only if he is the accused. If he is the witness, then he must await for the decision on the matter of self-incrimination by the tribunal. On the matter of “I cannot remember”, that is a refusal to testify, and that could be ground for citing the witness in contempt. In any event, because they have given the answer “I cannot remember”, I would vote for contempt in that because to keep saying “I cannot remember” eternal amnesia is a virtual challenge to the tribunal to arrive at the truth. #



Bad news of nuclear meltdowns is balanced by the good news that, as part of International Women’s Month, two sets of Filipinas – the 10 most successful and the 20 most influential – have been named on the internet.

In these two lists, only Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and singer Lea Salonga managed the singular feat of being the most successful and most influential at the same time.

On International Women’s Day, March 8, the powerful website Female Network, which has some 4 to 5 million page views per day, released the list of 10 awardees for its first-ever Womanity Award, as follows:

Continue reading


Privilege speech on Senate Bill No. 2701, delivered on 15 March 2011

Bill is Unconstitutional

In the past, society was governed by the belief that men were far superior to women.  Many times women were not classified as whole persons but as incomplete persons, who were classified together with children and village idiots.  Under this mentality, legislatures – which consisted purely of men – passed laws to extend so-called special protection to women and children.  This is known as the protectionist approach.  The problem with the protectionist approach was that it prevented women from doing certain activities that were open to men.  Thus, the so-called protectionist approach was actually discriminatory against women.

One of the most blatant examples of protective but discriminatory laws was the prohibition of night work for women.  Today, in the age of gender equality and gender balance, night work prohibition for women is an obsolete concept.  This concept – being useless and discriminatory to women – should be completely abolished.

Thus, any bill based on the existing provisions of the Labor Code prohibiting night work for women has already become archaic.  There is no question that Senate Bill 2701 providing for more exceptions from night work prohibition is motivated by the desire to help women.  Unfortunately, because of the paradigm shift giving women equal rights with men, even if the bill apparently seeks to help women, in reality it will still perpetuate the notion that night work for women can be prohibited.

Continue reading