Miriam Defensor Santiago | News

Lady Margaret Thatcher with Miriam Defensor Santiago when Thatcher visited Manila in 1994

On Lady Margaret Thatcher’s death

I’m very sad because Lady Thatcher has died. I met her here in the Philippines. I met her right after I allegedly lost in the presidential elections. She was touring Asia. She showed me extraordinary sympathy and compassion. She had read up on me, which was amazing because she is a global leader, and she commended me for my book called Cutting Edge. She said that she never reads the newspapers when she was PM because they ruined her day.

Margaret Thatcher shakes Miriam Defensor Santiago's hand when they met in Manila in 1994

I idolize her, actually. She is very unique and very brilliant. She started by taking chemistry in Oxford, and then she switched to law, which is very astounding. The kind of mental discipline that is needed to calibrate your brain from the sciences to the more social aspects of society, including social engineering, was amazing. I was very enriched with my experience with her. She was very results-oriented like me. I remember she came down the stairs, she greeted me and looked at my book, and then said “Well, let’s have a picture!”, everyone was standing around hoping to get a word with her and she knew people love to have pictures with her, so immediately we all fell in line. And then there was a certain general who was taking his time, maybe out of shyness. So she said rather sternly to him, “Oh come on, general! Shake a leg!” I love her for that memory.

(more…)

The basic legal and moral issue is when the Constitution provides that savings can be used “to augment other items”, can the savings be used among the high officials of that office itself—for example in the Senate, can the Senate President use the savings as part of Christmas bonuses to the senators in the guise of so-called “additional MOOE”? The first relevant factor there is why give additional office expenses to a senator when the year is over? In the next year he will get his own MOOE. Very clearly, MOOE is a code name for the fact that the Senate President is giving to every senator additional pork barrel to be spent at the discretion of the senator.

 The Commission on Audit chair does not want to go to the constitutional issue—and that is correct because the constitutional issue can only be settled by the Supreme Court. It is not this opinion or that opinion that will prevail in the media—it is what the Supreme Court will say. That should be authoritative. Unfortunately, I cannot bring a case anymore because I might be called anytime to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In fact, I know that this March the ICC will call several new judges for duty in The Hague. I might be one of them, I might stay longer, I might even stay until 2016, so I don’t really know what my status is. That is why I cannot bring the case to the Supreme Court.

The question here is: If the Senate does it, since it is authorized by the Constitution except that you have a question of what is the meaning of “augment other items”? Of course if you take a liberal view, it can include MOOE, but the thing is, the MOOE is needed at the start of the year, not at the end of the year because the office is closed at the end of the year. When January begins and the Senate gives money to the senators, there’s money for their MOOE, so why would you give them additional MOOE at the end of the year? That is very clear. It is evident proof that this is simply a guise—a disguise in fact—for giving money to the senators. The question is, sometimes Senate presidents give additional MOOE in June. That might be acceptable. We don’t really know until the Supreme Court says so.

I was personally insulted by the Senate President, but I will not reply by insulting him on a personal basis because it would make the whole constitutional issue frivolous. All these personal attacks against me are frivolous, sham, and dilatory. I challenge everybody who is attacking me. Just answer the legal issue: Are savings, which the Constitution intends should augment other items in the budget, validly spent when those savings are used at Christmas to pay so-called additional MOOE, when the year has already ended and the office expenses have already been taken care of? Let us just answer this question.

My own proposal to a rational and sober conclusion is let us appeal to the Commission on Audit to upload together with the Civil Service Commission all information on the total income—not only the salary—but everything in cash or in other forms like checks for every senator and for every other high public official para makita kung magkano talaga  ang total na tinatanggap ng bawat senador buwan-buwan o taun-taon para wala tayong duda na nagnanakaw pala sila o lumalabag sila ng batas, at, gaya nito, para wala tayong pagkakataon na atakihin ako just because I’m citing the Constitution. I think many people know that I’m a student of Constitutional Law, at natural lang na mag-cite ako ng Constitutional Law.  So I would like to know where is the law that gives the Senate President the power to make any discrimination efforts against certain political enemies, including myself and three others. According to him he has total and absolute discretion with the use of Senate funds. The Senate funds—I would like to remind the press—are the funds of the taxpayers. They are not the fund of the Senate President. So why will he exclude us? That is a violation of the equal protection clause. I don’t mind about the PHP 1.6 million, but I do mind the constitutional issue: What is the meaning of “augment other items”? Pwede mo bang gamitin ang pondo ng publiko para ipamigay mo kapag Pasko? The moral issue: Pwede ba iyan na kayo-kayo ang magdedesisyon na ang savings ng opisina ninyo ibibigay niyo sa sarili ninyo? Makatarungan ba iyan?

Pagkatapos sinabi niya walang makakapigil sa kanya kapag hinati niya ang savings. Apat kaming excluded. Suppose he excludes everybody except himself, his Pro-Tempore, and the Majority Leader: makatarungan ba iyan? We have to explore this novel theory of the Senate President that he can use the savings of the Senate for any purpose on any basis without any published criteria and no one can question him.

 Pati pala iyong Php250,000 na ipinaliwanag sa staff ko na “Personal Cash Gift” ng Senate President, hindi naman pala galing sa Senate President personally, kung hindi savings niya sa office niya as Senate President. Savings pa rin iyon, savings ng Senado, savings ng Senate President. Sabi ng staff ko “Personal Cash Gift”, sabi ko kung personal iyan, ibig sabihin hindi ko i-liquidate iyon. Kung ganyan, hindi natin tatanggapin. Basta pera na hindi ili-liquidate, o kinakailangan ng resibo para mapatunayan mo na ginastos mo for a public purpose, hindi natin tinatanggap.  Tinatanggap natin kung sinasabi na “liquidate it” or “give official receipts” for whatever you spend it on. Tinatanggap din natin kung para sa lahat ng senador. Ganun ang instructions ko sa staff ko. Kaming mga senador, hindi namin tinatanggap nang personal itong mga chekeng ito. Maraming cheke iyan e, kaya may opisyal kami sa staff na ang trabaho ay tumanggap ng cheke at magliquidate ng mga ito. My criteria are as long as it is given to all the senators and as long as liquidation is requested—that is the meaning of what the Constitution when it says “as long as vouchers are presented”.  That’s why some of the senators who were asked said “No, I didn’t get the Php 1.6 million” dahil hindi pa siguro bukas ang opisina nila, wala pang pagkakataon ang kanilang mga financial directors or auditors na magreport sa kanila kung ano ang natanggap ng opisina nila.

On Sen. Enrile’s counterattacks against her

Bakit ako ngayon ang pinagpapaliwanag? Bakit hindi siya ang magpaliwanag? The media are being misguided because we are now going to focus on me when the legal issue is focused onhis actions. He wants to turn the tables. It has become a custom in the Senate, but you have to draw a line. When will I raise my voice?

They ask me why did I not complain before. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I did not complain before. What stops me from now complaining dahil ngayon ko lang naintindihan? Bakit sila, hindi rin sila mag-complain din?  Bakit si Sen. Enrile noong hindi pa siya Senate President, bakit hindi siya nagreklamo noon?

Nakikita niyo sa sarili ninyong mata ngayon ang mainit na pagtanggap sa akin ng mga estudyante ng Centro Escolar University. You can see how enthusiastic and warm they are to me because of this controversy. That’s the public showing support for my position. Kahapon inatake niya ako, wala akong sagot doon. I’m not even going to file a case for an ethical conduct with the ethics committee of the Senate, because the level of the dialogue will sink to the level of the vulgar. Ayokong we’ll act in fistfights insulting each other. That will not enlighten the Filipino public. Ang punto ko ay ganito: bakit ang savings na dapat ay napunta sa Senado as an institution or as an agency, napunta sa mga senador, by giving the abusive amount, the unconscionable amount of P1.6 million? Bigyan ang senador ng P600,000 puwede pa iyon, but P1.6 M is unconscionably high to get from the taxpayers’ fund. That is my point. Kaya huwag niyo akong tanungin kung bakit noon hindi ako nagreklamo. What I’m saying is, let Enrile be accountable to the people, and his cohorts as well!

And I’m telling the students in this very warm, if not thunderous, ovation that they are giving me in the midst of all of these issues, I am telling the students, use the social media, kasi siya ang ginagamit niya corrupt media.

On rumors of replacing the Senate President

Well that depends on the senators. Nobody can predict how the senators will act. We don’t even know what the basis of their actions will be—if they have any moral scruples, if they are bound by their political allegiances—hindi natin intindi iyan e, that is all beyond my control. It’s not as if I want to replace the Senate president, I’ve got a job waiting for me in the ICC. It’s even higher in the eyes of the international community than the mere post of a Senate president in a developing country.

Labing-limang senador daw ang against kay Enrile as SP, kasama ka ba doon?

Walang nagcontact sa akin. Hindi ko intindi kung meron nga o wala. Noon pa hindi ako nakikialam sa reorganization. I’ve made that very clear to my colleagues.

What do you think is the reason of the Senate President for giving away P1.6 million?

First of all, the good will of the senators. A Senate president lives and dies on the opinion of his fellow senators. Kaya hindi siya hari na mataas siya at lahat ay susunod sa utos niya. He is sitting on a throne made of knives. Anytime, he can be overthrown—a paranoid fear of every Senate president. Bakit ko gugustuhing maging Senate president? I got my job in the ICC by means of academic qualifications. I was subject to interrogation by the best international lawyers in the whole world. And I won number one in the General Assembly. Hindi ako nagcorrupt ng media doon.

Is the P1.6M a bribe?

Draw your own conclusions. Sabi niya gifts daw niya iyon, hindi daw iyon bribe. Sana tiningnan niyo kanina kung ano ang reaksyon ng mga estudyante. Dito maliwanag e. Do you think I can bribe those students to give me that type of reception?

He’s accountable to public opinion. As I said, someone can bring a case to the Supreme Court, but I can’t. E kung tawagin ako ng ICC? Ang alam ko this March tatawag na ang ICC ng new judges. Hindi ko alam kung kasali ako doon o hindi. Hindi ko mapursue ang litigation sa Supreme Court, so let’s just leave it to the public, kamukha ng ginawa ni Jose Rizal sa Noli Me Tangere. Sabi niya, yung mga may sakit na malubha, yung nakahahawa pa, ilathala natin sila, iexhibit natin sila sa hagdanan ng simbahan. Ayaw ng mga taong lumapit sa kanila, pero makikita ng taong bayan kung ano ang mga sakit nila. Iyan ang ginagawa ko. Bakit naging kasalanan ko ngayon iyon? Murahin ako? Wala namang taong gustong minumura siya. Dapat ang aming debate tungkol lang sa Constitution. It should all be based on legal provisions. Meron siyang side niya, meron akong side ko. Ok lang sa akin iyan. Pero murahin ako on a personal level is not befitting a Senate president, and I refuse to debate on those terms. I challenge him to a debate in legal terms alone, in any forum in the Philippines covered by the media.

On the plans of some members of the Catholic church to petition the Supreme Court to junk the RH Bill once it becomes a law

I’m very happy as a lawyer if they would do that because it would give the Supreme Court a chance to elucidate it or explain further what is the meaning of the doctrine of separation of church and state. We now have a dearth of jurisprudence on that subject. We are not guided by many cases because there are very few cases concerning the doctrine, and all the cases have something to do with limitations on the power of the state. Now I am sure that although they will try to argue that the state has exceeded its powers, the solicitor general on the other hand—who will defend the RH Bill—will also argue that the church is exceeding its own powers. So there will be at least a clarification of the doctrine which I look forward to.

I am of course ready to help defend the RH Bill. I will submit place myself at the disposal of the solicitor general, and I am going to, if necessary, enlist the help of all the experts in constitutional law from UP.

On the opinion that divorce and abortion laws will be tackled next after the success of the RH Bill

No. Abortion, never. I am a very avid supporter of RH, but I will definitely fight to the death against abortion as a lawyer, not necessarily as a religious person. I equate it properly with the crime of murder.

With respect to divorce, I don’t see anything wrong as long as the divorce law will have very strict grounds. In fact there should only be two grounds, the same two grounds that are at present recognized by law as grounds for annulment for marriage, at least recognized in the past—now there are more and more grounds added. So I want to return to the old order where civil annulment was allowed only in two cases: one is an attempt on the life of the spouse by the other, and the other is when one spouse is already living with another person, that is adultery or concubinage. Iyon lang two grounds. On other grounds, I don’t advise it, I will not support it because it might trivialize the institution of marriage—young people might rush into marriage, particularly when they are young, and then change their minds and get a divorce. They will not have the maturity or enough patience to work on their marriage. In effect, if make divorce accessible in substantial grounds, we are telling young people “If you cannot get along, divorce.” Right now, the message of our society is that you cannot get along, try and get used to each other.

But there has to be a limit. For example, when you become homicidal at the sight of your spouse, it’s time to leave each other.

You don’t believe on the psychological grounds for divorce?

That is a slippery slope. Once you go there, it will become open-ended. I don’t think so.

Will a bill for divorce encounter difficulty like the RH Bill did?

Sigurado iyon. The Catholic church will fight tooth and nail even on those two grounds. So I think the best compromise there, since the church itself grants religious annulment in addition to civil annulment, then we’ll just adopt the grounds for annulment of the Catholic church.

On Malacañang calling for reconciliation after the approval of the RH Bill

Yes, that is the better attitude. We should always emulate President Aquino’s example. Winston Churchill said the proper attitude is “in victory, magnanimity; in defeat, graciousness.” We should all try, if we are pro-RH, to try and become magnanimous, and those who are anti-RH should try and be gracious.

 Should you be like that with Sen. Enrile?

I hope so.

I most respectfully recommend that there should be an immediate meeting between the secretary of Foreign Affairs, who is our spokesperson on international relations, and the secretary of Justice with respect to the entry into our country of Chinese nationals bearing the so-called new Chinese e-passports that allegedly show that certain parts of the West Philippine Sea fall under the sovereignty of China, which have always claimed the West Philippine Sea as the South Chinese Sea. That is an upfront to Philippine sovereignty. We cannot stop China from printing any type of passport bearing any kind of legend or photograph it wishes, but we have sovereign power to prevent any person who seeks entry into Philippine territory by any entry point– through sea, land, air, seaport, airport, or by any means of transportation.

We have the power, as long as it is Philippine territory, to reject any national wishing to enter our country with a passport that bears a map that clearly opposes the Philippine claim to the West Philippine Sea. We have sovereignty on certain grounds upheld by international law—historical, document, geographical, etc.—with respect to our claim there. We cannot allow these Chinese nationals to cross borders and enter Philippine territory where there is no dispute, presenting a passport or a document that purports to show that part of our maritime territory is part of the maritime territory of the State of origin. That is a direct assault on our sovereignty. That would be considered an act of aggression. That’s aggressive. I don’t care what they print on their own passport because we cannot infringe on their sovereignty, but I do care, as a Filipino citizen, the moment they come into our country.

If they bear that kind of passport, we will be acting well within our rights to deny them admission into our territory. Turn them back immediately. They should be self-deported upon arrival at the airport. They should take the next flight out of the country if they can afford to do so. But we should not allow them to go out of the airport and roam around Philippine territory carrying that kind of offensive document. You know under the doctrine of sovereignty, every State has in general terms, control over its own territory subject only to the concept or doctrine of human rights. But human rights are not involved here. So there is absolutely no basis in international law to grant basis or even the function of entering our territory to any national who carries an official document, which opposes by means of drawings or maps, our own sovereignty as we claim it in tribunals and discussion centers of the world, such as the United Nations.

(more…)

On the RH Bill and the “Catholic vote”

I have always said that it is a political myth because it has already been disproved by empirical experience in actual elections. The candidate the Catholic Church focused on to defeat still won, so there is no such thing as a Catholic vote. We’ve never had it in our electoral experience and to talk about it as if it were fait accompli, as if it were something that happens in our elections, is to mislead the public.

It is said that Catholic clergy has influence over local politics and politicians.

Yes. In fact when I started campaigning, the first stop is always the bishop’s palace or the parish priest. I thought that it was strange and an aberration because elections are a political exercise. The clerics are free to discipline their own constituents or parishioners within the structure of their own religions, but they cannot ask—as the Catholic church is apparently is asking—for preferential treatment as against all the other churches in the Philippines. That will become a step towards establishing an official religion. The Catholic church is not the official state religion. It has to exhibit an attitude of tolerance to the other religions because the rule in constitutional law is the state should be neutral to all religions, plus it must be neutral to those who have no religion at all—the atheists and the agnostics.

 Is the majority of Catholics are pro-RH?

Yes, absolutely, because the surveys say so, and the Catholic Church has not come up with any survey that would be credible that indicates the contrary.

We are looking forward to maybe three weeks after we pass the budget hopefully this week, before we adjourn in December 21 for the Christmas break. We hope we can finish the period of amendments, and even if the President does not certify it as urgent, we can still afford to wait for three days between the approval in second reading after amendments and the approval on third reading, which is just nominal voting.

Do you think there would be voting before the Christmas break?

We hope so. We hope it would be a Christmas present for all infanticipating, for all pregnant women.

Will the hearing on the VFA and toxic waste dumping in Subic continue despite claims that the waste was not toxic in the first place?

Yes, absolutely. You know, there are so many factual allegations, that the first function of a Senate hearing is to find out which one is true, not only this allegation that what was dumped into our waters was not toxic or hazardous. What if it is not toxic or hazardous, why did they have to dump it? The mere fact that they dumped it means that it is not beneficial to our people. What kind of argument is that ‘it is not hazardous or toxic, therefore they have the right to dump it”? The VFA requires that before any vessel, under the agreement, can come to our country it needs a permit of the Philippine government. So the first question there is “Do they have a permit?”.  It is not a question of what they dumped there.

Secondly, it is not a finding. That is just the defense raised by the private contractor. Naturally, they are not going to say “Yes, we dumped toxic waste”. So now it becomes a question for empirical evidence. We have to ask our scientists if that is correct or not. Correct or not, still we have jurisdiction because, by their own admission, the dumping took place within Philippine waters, within waters over which the Philippines under international law exercises jurisdiction.

The second question of fact there is Is it true the first time they were hailed to answer for their efforts at dumping, their lawyer argued that SBMA did not have jurisdiction but only VFACOM, which was absolutely baseless. We want to know if it actually took place because if it did, then there is obviously an effort to skirt the issue by choosing the venue.

First, let’s settle the facts. We cannot take the word of the respondent for it. We have to examine if what he is saying is true. Maybe from his point of view it is true, but from the viewpoint of the Philippine government or concerned parties in the Philippine government, it is not true.

(more…)

On the TRO issued by the Supreme Court against the Cybercrime Prevention Act

This will be a contest, a competition between the decision of the Supreme Court and the amended law, which we hope to produce here. We are relying on the decision of the Supreme Court because number one, this is a landmark tradition. It will concern the right of free speech in the digital age. Number two, it will be a landmark decision because it will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to explain why “free speech” occupies a so-called preferred position in our Constitution. What is the meaning of preferred position? This refers that there are many civil and political rights that are protected in our Bill of Rights. The question is, what does the Supreme Court mean when it says that speech occupies a preferred position? As a general rule, every law passed by Congress enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. This case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to underline the fact that whenever a law passed by Congress seeks to limit free speech, there is no presumption of constitutionality. I even hold the extreme position that a law, such as the Cybercrime Prevention Act, should be presumed unconstitutional. That is the meaning of speech enjoys a preferred position.

[Also,] We have had to invent an entire vocabulary about crimes committed on the Internet. For example, crimes such as pharming, meaning to say, when someone sends a message, you are able to redirect the message to somewhere else, maybe to your own website. And then after that, there is a crime called spoofing, meaning to say you make the receiver believe that it came from somebody else other than yourself when you’re actually the person sending it. There is also a crime called phishing, meaning to say, you make the person believe that it comes from another source. There is also spear phishing. There are also maladjustive gangs, who pretend to be financial institutions so they can draw out information about your financial situation. There are also (a) so-called (crime, which is) malvertising. They pretend to be so-called online legal advertising but they will actually draw you into a fraudulent website. Or even pretexting, (which means) just having a false email address, having a false website and so on. So we have this new vocabulary coming out, and this will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to define what these cases are.

In any event, the TRO is always a minor victory. It is always reason to hope that the final decision will be as indicated in the TRO, meaning to say, that the Cybercrime Prevention Act will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. What a relief! This may even be a template for other developing countries that are grappling with the new phenomenon of digital communication.

My position is that because there are so many invalid provisions there, from my humble point of view, it is better for the Supreme Court to strike down the entire law so that Congress will not have the duty of amending certain provisions in part or in whole and thus producing a disjointed bill. The Supreme Court sometimes does that when there are so many provisions in a certain bill or in a certain law that it considers unconstitutional or questionable, it will declare the entire law to be unconstitutional.

 This will be a very, very auspicious case for us.

On the Bangsamoro framework agreement

As chair of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments, I am very concerned with the framework agreement with the Bangsamoro concerning Philippine government and Bangsamoro relations. First, it appears to me, as explicitly mentioned in the framework agreement, this agreement depends upon the amendment of our Constitution. How can foreign parties have participated in negotiations that involve the amendment of our Constitution? The very definition of Constitutional sovereignty is that we become independent of any other state. So I’m very worried that some other state—Malaysia, the mediator—or a few other states may have been participating in these negotiations which will dictate how the Filipinos will implement a constitutional provision on the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

There are at least two constitutional amendment involved here. One is, in the Bangsamoro area or region, there will be not the Presidential form of government, but a completely different form of government, the Parliamentary form of government. That certainly will require an amendment of our Constitution. And the second amendment, which seems to be necessitated by this framework agreement is a federalized system with respect only Bangsamoro area because is treated as a so-called sub-state as in a federal state. Other local government units will be treated as local government units under our presidential form of government but this particular area will be treated as sub-state.

If we read the context of this Bangsamoro agreement, you will see that this so-called sub-state will have power that all governments exercise, except the following: it cannot exercise power on external defense, on security, on foreign policy, over coinage and monetary policy, over citizenship and naturalization, and postal service. But otherwise, it is a completely independent state. If you will notice, if you will go to dictionaries, even law dictionaries, there is no word such as a sub-state. Was this term invented for us? What we know in Constitutional law is there are so-called dependent states, which is what the Bangsamoro area will become. Don’t call it a sub-state; it will become a dependent state or a non-sovereign state, which is what is actually is. And plus, there is a transitional commission, which is supposed to draft the Bangsamoro basic law or Constitution of Bangsamoro area, but this Bangsamoro basic law will have to include these two constitutional amendments.

(more…)

On Sen. Trillanes as backdoor negotiator in the Philippines-China relations

In the first place, the secretary of foreign affairs must know what’s going on, whether it is explicit or implicit, meaning to say whether it is publicized or kept under wraps. In any event, it is not relevant to the leadership of the secretary of foreign affairs. It is important that everything should be known by the secretary so that he will have complete input to help him in the decision-making process. It appears that Sec. Del Rosario was caught off-guard, so I can understand fully well why he is miffed about the whole secret that was kept from him.

 Now we have a case where nobody knows who initiated this backchannel procedure. According to Sen. Trillanes, it was Sec. Ochoa who asked him, but Malacañang claims it was Sen. Trillanes who volunteered to do so. Apparently, he has been going there a great number of times. When we talk of Amb. Sonia Brady’s notes, these are notes that are meant to be reported to the secretary of foreign affairs. That is the standard procedure for all diplomats when they meet someone from the home country, most especially in their assigned country, they will always put down in writing their notes on their conversation because they have to report to the secretary of foreign affairs. Apparently, it was only after Sec. Del Rosario received the notes from Amb. Brady that he learned that there was such an operation, and of course that is shocking to any department secretary, that there is an operation within your department of which you are unaware and have been deliberately excluded from the process.

This is entirely unfortunate because now Sen. Trillanes’s cover has been blown. He can no longer be an effective backchannel negotiator. He may as well be a formal negotiator for the Philippine panel. His contacts or channels in China will no longer have the same effectiveness until this was reported out in the Philippine media because the Chinese Communist Party will know the moves of the Philippines in advance. This is a faux pas in diplomacy by the Philippine government. We don’t even know who tapped who because that seems to be a point of contention.

(more…)

On withdrawing her invocation of Sec. 20 against the appointment of DILG Sec. Mar Roxas before the Commission on Appointments

Sen. Roxas is one of the senators I’m closest to and he is from the Visayas. Roxas is also a Visayan name, and I also come from that region. I really didn’t want him to be collateral damage to my ongoing battle/ tussle with Malacañang. I just wanted to prove the principle that Malacañang, under the Constitution, has no power to block an inquiry in aid of legislation under the Constitution by just ordering cabinet members not to attend. They can invoke executive privilege but it will depend on the Senate committee to either accept the invocation, or question it, and we shall all go to the Supreme Court. It cannot be just as simple as telling the cabinet members not to attend. I wasn’t able to elicit very much from the hearing because I could have done that by questioning the cabinet members.

Kaya lang, ngayon, kay Sec. Roxas, talagang mabigat ang loob ko doon. Una, malapit ang loob naming sa isa’t isa. Even his wife is very close to me. So he doesn’t deserve that type of treatment. Sabi ko nga, naging collateral damage siya. He’s innocent but he gets whacked in the head because I’m conducting some other battle. And secondly, wala actually namang kwenta iyon dahil the Senate will already be on break. Under the Constitution, the president can issue to him an ad interim appointment, and he could take office immediately on Saturday until the Senate resumes session.

(more…)