•             BPI Acropolis Branch – 8
•             BPI Tandang Sora - 18
•             BPI Del Monte, Quezon City - 34
•             BPI Investment Corp. -1
•             PSB Cainta – 8
•             PSB Katipunan - 6
•             Allied Bank – 4
•             Deutsche Bank – 2
•             City Bank - 1

Because of hi-tech banking practices today, any information about a bank account will depend upon the system adopted by a particular bank.  For example, the bank could follow the customer transaction system or the bank transaction system. Hence, it could be possible that a single sum of money could be represented as a double entry.  One entry would be made in the credit column and another entry would be made in the debit column, although both entries could deal with one and the same amount of money.

A client could deposit and withdraw the same amount within a single day or within a few days of each other, if he engages in dollar trading.  A client who maintains a foreign currency deposit is not required to acquire a license for this purpose.  However, to engage in dollar trading, two or three accounts are sufficient.  It would be unnecessary to maintain all of 82 accounts.

The standard practice in the banking community is to raise the bells and whistles when one client seeks to keep more than two or three accounts.  To allege that the defendant had, for example, 34 accounts in BPI Del Monte taxes the credulity of bankers.

Therefore, I humbly propose, if there is no objection from our colleagues, that the Senate President should subpoena the manager of all nine bank branches that I have just enumerated.  The most knowledgeable official about a person’s bank account is the branch manager.  The branch manager is required by law and by standard banking policy to seek and record details about the client.#

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 6, the court has power to stop further evidence on a particular point, “when the evidence is already so full that some witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive.  But this power should be exercised with caution.”

Further, under Rule 119 Sec. 11 para. (c):  “The prosecution and the defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.”  In People v. Tan, 315 SCRA 375 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled: “It is within the sound discretion of a trial judge to allow a party that has rested its case to introduce rebuttal evidence.”

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 135, Section 1: “Justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay.”  Under Sec. 5, entitled Inherent Powers of Courts, “every court shall have power: (d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto.”

In the Pres. Clinton impeachment case, the House of Representatives impeached him for perjury and obstruction of justice on 19 December 1998.  Senate trial began on 7 January 1999.  He was acquitted on 12 February 1999 – or a little over a month later.

Therefore, I humbly submit that this impeachment court, after nearly five months of trial, possesses authority to order the conclusion of trial on or before June 7, so as to allow judgment to be promulgated before Congress ends this session. 

Point No. 2:  Is it relevant to the impeachment proceedings that the sale to the City of Manila of land owned by Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc. represented by Cristina Corona was disallowed in audit, following this timeline:

2001 – Negotiated sale was consummated.  City government took possession of the property and constructed a public market on it.  Mrs. Corona received a check worth some P35 million, allegedly in trust for BGEI.  She deposited the check in her own account.

2002 – One year later, COA issued a Notice of Suspension of payment.  It appears that the City of Manila took no action, because of alleged failure to serve notice properly.  Hence, under the State Auditing Code, the transaction remained an unsettled account. The Notice of Suspension was based on alleged failure to submit certain documents, i.e.: original copy of deed of absolute sale; TCT in favor of City of Manila; recommendation of the Appraisal Committee; and copy of the latest tax declaration transferred from the owner to City of Manila.

March 2012 – After 11 years, COA issued Notice of Disallowance.

 In Carabeo v. CA, 607 SCRA 394 (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the term “unexplained” matter normally results from “non-disclosure” or concealment of vital facts.

It appears that the Corona SALN did not conceal the vital fact of the sale.  In his 2003 SALN, Corona “mentioned the item “Cash advance from BGEI (wife’s family corporation) of P11 million.”

The Corona SALNs do not include the purchase price of P35 million, because Cristina Corona apparently received it from the City of Manila in trust for the corporation.  The 1994 SALN form did not require the declaration of trust arrangements.  Subsequently, the 2006-07 SALN Manual required the declaration of assets held in trust; but the Civil Service Commission has deferred the application of this Manual.

In law, the term “relevant” means logically connected and tending to prove or disprove a matter in issue.  It means having appreciable probative value – that is, rationally tending to persuade people of the probability or improbability of some alleged fact.  The word “relevant” means that the COA Notice of Disallowance, and the failure to include the purchase price of corporation property in the Corona SALN, should be so related to each other that one fact tends to prove the other fact.  Under this definition, the COA Notice of Disallowance is irrelevant to this impeachment proceedings.

Under the Rules of Court, Rule 128, Sec. 4, entitled Relevancy of Evidence: “Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.  Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.”

In De Paul v. NLRC, 304 SCRA 448 (1999), the SC ruled: “A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence, and any decision based on unsubstantial allegation cannot stand, as it will offend due process.”

Therefore, applying the test of relevancy, and under the principle of criminal due process, I humbly submit that any evidence tending to prove any irregularity in the sale of BGEI property to the City of Manila would be irrelevant to impeachment proceedings over the alleged omissions in the SALN of the defendant.  Evidence on alleged irregularities should be presented to the Solicitor General for litigation in court.

Here are some clips from the episode:

Rappler.com has a short article on Miriam’s Powerhouse guesting, saying

“Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago has been a showstopper in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. This time, the lady senator from Iloilo spouts witty lines not on matters of law but on her personal journey.”

Boy Abunda also had nice things to say to the senator this week in his article in the Philippine Star, drawing up a list of reasons why he loves Miriam:

“7. I love her because she is unpretentiously a politician of the first order. There are many ways of loving and serving this country. Some people are very good at accounting while others are good in the arts. Miriam is a brilliant legislator. She is an expert politician because a politician is someone who engages in activities that make better life for all. “

On one occasion the good Lord said, “Everything is going to be all right.”  On another, “You will see for yourself that every sort of thing will be all right.”  In these two sayings the soul discerns various meanings.

          One is that he wants us to know that not only does he care for great and noble things, but equally for little and small, lowly and simple things as well.  This is his meaning: “Everything will be all right.”  We are to know that the least thing will not be forgotten.

          Another is this:  We see deeds done that are so evil, and injuries inflicted that are so great, that it seems to us quite impossible that any good can come of them.  As we consider these, sorrowfully and mournfully, we cannot relax in the blessed contemplation of God as we ought.  This is caused by the fact that our reason is now so blind, base, and ignorant that we are unable to know that supreme and marvelous wisdom, might, and goodness that belong to the blessed Trinity.  This is the meaning of his words “You will see for yourself that every sort of thing will be all right.”  It is as if he were saying, “Be careful now to believe and trust, and in the end you will see it all in its fullness and joy.”

Santiago said that in theology, hell is not a geographical place, but is a metaphor for distance from God.

“The priest is saying that he is close to God, and I’m not.  I say to the priest, judge not, that you shall not be judged,” she said.

The senator said she was told that the priest had approached certain journalists to make sure that his homily would be reported in the print media.

“It is like St. Paul writing letters to the Corinthians, and begging them to publicize his letters.  This priest sounds very much like a publicity hound.  And I thought humility in spiritual matters is a virtue,” she said.

Santiago said that under Vatican 2, the Catholic Church no longer clings to the monopoly on truth.

“Under Vatican 2, priests and nuns should be treated like everyone else.  They are not special people just because they have joined a religious community.  It does not make them any more smarter or holier than you and me,” she said.

Santiago holds, not only a law doctorate, but also a masters in theology from the Maryhill School of Theology, where she got high marks.

“The Constitution provides for a wall of separation between church and state.  A priest cannot violate the law in the guise of criticizing a senator-judge with the ulterior motive of promoting his own political agenda,” she said.

The senator said that the social media has been showered with angry comments from young people attacking religious meddling in the current impeachment trial, instead of concentrating on the immorality of corruption.

Santiago said that the widespread popularity of certain books against religion and against certain churches has been triggered by the disaffection of young people who no longer accept the claim to absolute morality by certain clerics.

“That priest should spend his energy fighting pedophilia within the Catholic Church, instead of meddling in politics and serving to divide church practitioners,” she said.

Santiago also criticized the priest for making a literal interpretation of the Bible.

“Under Vatican 2, the story of  Genesis is no longer a historical fact but a myth.  The Bible should not be read literally, but should be read in its Aramaic context.  Unfortunately, some of the religious refuse to accept the changes started by Vatican 2,” she said.

“I can engage in a public debate with the priest, and we can exchange quotation for quotation from the Bible.  But that would be foolish, because the Bible can be interpreted in as many ways as there are Christian churches,” she said.

I was in a suit, when I first appeared before her, but I didn’t have a tie. She said, "Counsel, you are in a suit, but you don’t have a tie. In my Court, when you come in a suit, you must have a tie. I fine you P50.00 for coming to Court, in a coat without a tie."

          I was wearing a new Barong Tagalog, when I next appeared before her. When my case was called, she said: "You are in Barong Tagalog, counsel, but you didn’t button it, up to your neck. You should be very formal, when you come to my Court. For not buttoning your Barong up to the neck, you are fined P50.00.”

          That was how strict, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago was as a Regional Trial Court Judge. No wonder, she is much stricter, as a Senator-Judge, hearing the historical impeachment case of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona." Atty. Jay C. De Castro, Founder, MPB, March 1, 2012.

Original text could be found here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/magkaisa-para-sa-bayan-inc/i-appeared-before-judge-miriam-defensor-santiago-a-very-strict-regional-trial-co/10150553945661157

13 February 2012

Senator Vicente Sotto III

Senate Majority Leader

By fax and by hand

Dear Senator Sotto:

This is to respectfully request you to relay the following message to our colleagues in caucus on Monday, February 13. Thank you.

My Vote:

I vote to obey the Supreme Court TRO on the foreign currency deposits of the Chief Justice, on the following grounds. These six grounds are based on the ideology that the impeachment court is not almighty, not absolute, not illimitable, and not more supreme than the Supreme Court.

First Ground:

Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Obedience to the TRO preserves governmental stability, while disobedience precipitates a constitutional crisis. If we have a choice between stability and crisis, the wiser choice is always national stability.

This solution is analogous to the legal doctrine of “last clear chance” in the law of torts. A tort, as distinguished from a crime, means a civil wrong, for which the remedy is damages. Under this doctrine, the most common example is an automobile collision. If plaintiff was negligent, nonetheless he will win over the defendant, if the defendant had the last opportunity to prevent the harm, but failed to use reasonable care to do so.

In the present impeachment case, it is the Senate which has the last clear chance to avoid a crisis, by obeying the TRO.

Second Ground:

Judicial Power Includes both Justiciable

Questions and Political Questions

Under the Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. This judicial power has two components:

1. Justiciable questions, which the Court defines as “actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable;” and

2. Political questions, which the Constitution defines as “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”

Thus, the “political question doctrine” no longer applies under the 1987 Constitution. Under this discarded doctrine, a court should refuse to decide an issue involving the exercise of discretionary power by the executive or legislative branch of government. Assuming that the power to issue subpoena concerning foreign currency deposits is discretionary with the impeachment court, still the Supreme Court has power over this political question.

Because the US Court has no provision similar to ours, American cases on impeachment and the political question doctrine do not apply in this country

Third Ground:

This Impeachment Court is not Authorized

to Violate the Law

The law on secrecy of foreign currency deposits describes this secrecy to be “absolute,” except ONLY AND ONLY WHEN the depositor consents. Congress made this law. The lawmakers should not be the lawbreakers. Instead, the lawmakers should, if necessary, amend the law.

Fourth Ground:

The Theory of Checks and Balances

Prohibits this Impeachment Court from

Claiming an Exception for Itself

Under the theory of checks and balances, each branch of government has the ability to counter the actions of any other branch, so that no single branch can control the entire government. The Constitution allows one branch to check the excesses or choices of another branch. Do we mean to say that this impeachment court is free of any check or balance? Then it becomes almighty! Under the Constitution, this impeachment court has no authority to study its own navel.

When the impeachment court obeys the Supreme Court TRO, this does not mean that one is superior over the other. It merely means that the Constitution is supreme over all branches and agencies of the government.

The Constitution provides that: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” The phrase “sole power” means only that impeachment shall not be conducted by any other branch or agency. The phrase “to try and decide” means only that the Supreme Court cannot try or decide the impeachment case.

Some people seem to be confused that judicial review of impeachment procedures is equivalent to judicial determination of the outcome. But this does not mean that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over all constitutional questions. It only means that the SC cannot exercise full judicial review, but it retains the power of the most minimal judicial review. This is a result of the theory of checks and balances.

Fifth Ground:

Disobedience to the TRO Violates the

Defendant’s Human Rights

Separation of powers was conceived to protect individual rights. Judicial review is an integral part of separation of powers. Accordingly, minimum judicial review of the exercise of the impeachment power is observed, in order to ensure that no individual right is being violated. It has been said that the individual right at risk in an impeachment trial is a federal judge’s potential loss of position, including the independence he or she is guaranteed.

Sixth Ground:

In at Least Two Previous Cases,

The Supreme Court Ruled That It

Has Power of Judicial Review Over

Impeachment Cases.

The two cases are: Francisco v. Nagmamalasakit, 415 SCRA 44 (2003) and Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, 643 SCRA 198 (2011).

Francisco involved the filing of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. The Supreme Court ruled: “The Constitution did not leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress – it provided for certain well-defined limits or “judicially discoverable standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review.”

Gutierrez concerned the impeachment of the Ombudsman by the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court ruled: “The Court finds it well within its power to determine whether public respondent committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abused its discretion in the exercise of the functions and prerogatives that could translate as lack or excess of jurisdiction, which would force corrective measures from the Court.”

Sincerely yours,

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Copy to:

Senate media

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago

(Keynote speech delivered at the joint annual convention of the Philippine Society of Hypertension, and Philippine Lipid and Atherosclerosis Society, held at the Crowne Plaza Galleria in Quezon City on 8 February 2012.)

Length of Time

The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton was held in 1999. It began on January 7 and ended on February 12, with an acquittal. Thus, the Clinton trial lasted for just about a month. We are not going to be as lucky with the present impeachment trial, as I shall explain later.

When the US Senate acted as an impeachment court against federal judges, the shortest trial took a little more than a month; and the longest trial lasted about 14 months. The average length of the U.S. impeachment trials against federal judges is about four months.

In my considered estimate, our ongoing impeachment trial will last for about five months. It began in January, and will probably end by about May.

Purpose of Impeachment

I have said and I repeat that, contrary to the ill-considered press releases of certain personalities, an impeachment trial is a unique process, because it is a hybrid. Impeachment is both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. It is not a civil case nor a criminal case. A criminal case is designed to punish an offender and to seek retribution. In contrast, impeachment is the first step in a process that tries to remedy a wrong in governance.

It has been said that the purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment, but rather to maintain constitutional government, through the removal of an unfit official from a position of public trust.

General Principles

The fundamental book on this topic is entitled, Impeachment: A Handbook by Professor Charles Black, Jr. of Yale University. It consists of only 69 pages, and I strongly recommend that it should be required reading for politicians who aspire to the minimum level of intelligence on the impeachment process. I shall now try to summarize Prof. Black.

Impeachment is a dreadful process. It inflicts a deep wound on the country. The citizens should adopt an attitude of “vigilant waiting;” while the representatives and the senators should adopt an attitude of “principled political neutrality.”

The technical “Rules of Evidence” should not apply to an impeachment trial. In effect, the House is the prosecuting party at the Senate trial, and the managers are the counsel of the House. The impeachment trial, being quasi-judicial, should inquire into the facts and the law, without partisan or narrow political bias, and proceed to judgment accordingly. The goal should be total impartiality.

However, impeachment is also quasi-political. Many senators find themselves either definitely friendly or definitely inimical to the Chief Justice. In an ordinary judicial trial, persons with such attitudes would be disqualified. But if so, many of the senators would then have to be disqualified, and only a small remnant will remain to conduct the trial. According to Prof. Black: “The remedy has to be in the conscience of each senator.” Therefore, the ultimate issue is whether each senator has a conscience, and if that conscience is educated.

The worst penalty that the Senate is authorized to impose is merely removal from office and disqualification to hold public office. The Constitution provides that judgment “shall not extend further” than these two penalties. This implies that the Senate can impose lower penalties. The removed officer may later be tried and punished in the ordinary courts, for ordinary offenses that are grounds for removal.

Senate acquittal is not an endorsement of the Chief Justice, or even an approval of his conduct. Acquittal establishes only that the senators who voted No were not convinced of the guilt of the Chief Justice on the actual Articles of Impeachment, brought in by the House of Representatives.

Since impeachment is not a criminal trial, the standard of proof should not be as high as “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” But because it targets the highest official of the judicial branch, the standard of proof should not be as low as “substantial evidence.” Prof. Black recommends that the standard of proof should be “overwhelming preponderance of evidence.” Certain people who claim that the standard of proof does not matter, are in effect arguing that impeachment is a purely political process, which is misguided.

There should not be any “judicial review” of impeachment proceedings. It is not only the courts that can discuss or determine issues of constitutionality. Congress has final responsibility for impeachment, because it has the responsibility to preserve the forms and precepts of our Constitution. It is not sensible to allow the Supreme Court to review the final decision of the Senate as an impeachment court. Otherwise, an impeached and convicted Chief Justice could go back to the Supreme Court for the rest of his term, which is absurd. No reinstated Chief Justice would be able to regain his aura of legitimacy.

Courts decide constitutional questions which arise from cases over which they have jurisdiction. Courts have no jurisdiction over the impeachment process. Impeachment is quasi-judicial in the sense that it aims at fairness, impartiality, and decision according to law.

Competence of House and Senate

Impeachment is a matter of law. Hence, the impeachment proceedings in the House put House representatives into positions for which they are neither trained nor prepared. When they reach trial, the representatives assume the role of prosecutor, which requires a carefully documented case through the filing of appropriate briefs, questioning of witnesses, cross-examination, and oral advocacy. However, many House members are not lawyers, and even if they are, they have little experience in litigation or trial tactics.

Their role becomes even more complicated, because the defense counsel, unlike the representatives, are usually experienced trial lawyers. Hence, the House managers should delegate extensive motion and pretrial practice to narrow the issues, as well as conduct depositions, to outside counsel and permanent staff. A problem with the representatives as prosecutors is that they want to do everything themselves in front of the cameras. This is the siren call of media, because it includes a certain amount of egotism and narcissism.

On the part of the Senate, the senators are not allowed to debate in open court many issues in the impeachment trial. When debate is permitted among senators, it must be made in closed session. As a result, the reasons for certain decision in an impeachment trial may not be reflected in the public record. As in the case of representatives, many senators also lack the requisite experience, expertise, or training to deal competently with impeachment matters.

Role of Media

Prof. Black advocates “most strenuously” that radio, TV, and cameras should not be allowed at the impeachment trial. His argument is that it inflicts humiliation greater than that inflicted by the mere fact of impeachment. He wrote: “Nothing solid is added to public information, but making a continuing spectacle of a trial. Above all, TV, radio, and photography act upon that which they purport to observe.” Prof. Black argues that what we see and hear is not what would have occurred if media were not there.

The other argument is that continual nationwide TV exposure poses the danger of maximizing the chances of development of public pressure for some given result. Accordingly, he warns: “The judgment of the public ought to come after the fact, on sober and long consideration of a record which will remain accessible forever.”

In the case of Pres. Clinton, it has been said that the media had enormous impact, as follows:

· First, because there are countless media outlets, there is now frantic competition not only to get breaking news, but also to engage in speculation and commentary, rather than simply reporting facts, in an effort to keep or increase audiences.

· Second, the media coverage drove the final outcome. In addition, media coverage of the Clinton impeachment trial constantly reminded the American people that it was difficult to argue convincingly that Clinton had breached the public trust, which is the classic prerequisite for impeachment. The media’s constant bashing of Pres. Clinton’s integrity throughout his presidency might have lowered the public expectation regarding Clinton’s integrity. American media seemed to be obsessed in finding the next scandal, leading the public to become skeptical over the impeachment proceedings.

· Finally, this conclusion can be applied to the present Philippine public over the impeachment trial: “The media’s comprehensive coverage bored the public, and the media’s increasing penchant for scandal and speculation turned off most of the public, while prolonging the hearing had little, if any, prospect, that anything new would happen.”

In my humble view, the media is correct in reporting that the Filipino people are exasperated with the impeachment trial. Public discontent intensifies the pressure to end the impeachment trial as soon as possible.

Avoiding Delay

Avoiding delay in trial is provided for by the Rules of Court by means of a “pre-trial conference.” It is unfortunate that the Senate denied the defense motion for pre-trial. Therefore, we are left with only the procedure of asking both counsel to make stipulations on uncontested facts. I humbly propose that before the prosecutor presents his witness on direct examination, he should declare the purpose of the testimony, and ask defense counsel if the latter will stipulate that the witness will testify to a fact which defense counsel does not contest. Thus, the testimony in open court of the witness can be waived and time is saved.

One of the biggest sources of the delay and confusion is the coming 2013 senatorial elections. Every senatoriable is eager to spout pious nonsense about impeachment, just to get free media advertising ahead of the campaign. In pragmatic terms, the vote of every senator running for reelection will depend on how much weight he or she will give to two opposing factors.

One factor is the desire to run in the administration ticket, which is always conceded to be superior in terms of money and other resources. The controverting factor is the desire to win the mass votes of certain NGOs with strong feelings in favor of the person impeached.

It all boils down to conscience, if it exists.

-End-

            I miss our daily banter and am desperately trying to get well.  I also miss the impeachment trial punctuated by certain personalities who have all the charm of show window mannequins.  But my health is not cooperating.  However, I shall be happy to hear from you for phone interviews, if the questions are not about the merits of the case.

            Over the weekend, I was normal at 120/80.  This morning Monday, my blood pressure was galactic at 140/100.  At that rate, if I attend the impeachment hearings, I will soon be pushing daisies at a memorial park near you.

            Ironically, I have accepted a speaking engagement on Wednesday before the Philippine Society of Hypertension, and the Philippine Lipid and Atherosclerosis Society.  They are holding their joint annual convention.  If I can attend, I shall speak, not as an authority on medicine, but as a victim of old age.  Call me the walking wounded.  I would really like to go because I’m already prepared with my pick-up lines!

            I refuse to succumb to illness, because I don’t want to give my political enemies the pleasure of dancing on my grave, chortling like contented snakes. However, I shall be happy to hear from you for phone interviews, if the questions are not about the merits of the case.

                                                                                     Sincerely yours,

                                                                                     MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO

Santiago is the first Filipino and the first Asian from a developing state to serve as ICC judge, thus earning a place of honor for the Philippines in ICC history.

Together with five other new judges, Santiago will take her oath of office this March, but will not immediately assume her post in The Hague, Netherlands, until the ICC calls her to report for duty.

Thus, it is likely that Santiago will remain as a senator in the next six months or even longer, depending on when she is called to The Hague.

The senator said she expects to play an active role as a trial judge in the impeachment case against Chief Justice Renato Corona, and to urge her fellow senators to pass the Reproductive Health bill, of which she is the author and co-sponsor.

“This is a victory for the Philippines in the international legal community.  The tribute belongs to President Benigno Aquino, who nominated me; foreign affairs secretary Albert del Rosario, who maximized his unerring generalship over all Philippine posts abroad; foreign affairs undersecretary Rafael Seguis, who was the campaign manager; and most of all to Ambassador Libran Cabactulan, the Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who was the model diplomat in networking with the UN ambassadors.  All members of the Philippine mission (embassy) in New York did splendid field work,” she said.

Santiago placed No. 1 in the first round of voting, followed by a candidate from Trinidad and Tobago.

At this writing, the second round and possibly other rounds still need to be conducted, in order to complete the number of six new judges.

The ICC has 120 states parties, of which 117 voted in the first round last Monday.  The Philippines was No. 1 with 79 votes, the highest number.  Trinidad and Tobago was No. 2, with 72 votes.  The Philippine mission said that some of Santiago’s votes may have been inadvertently invalidated, because of complex balloting rules.

ICC elections are extremely complicated, but the process this year was made simpler when the Coalition for the ICC commissioned an Independent Panel of Experts to assess the qualifications of candidates.  In the assessment report, Santiago was rated “Qualified,” while four other candidates were rated as “Unqualified.”

Interviewed by radio stations early yesterday morning, Santiago said she was ready to resign as senator if the ICC officially calls her to report for work, but that she personally prefers to stay as long as possible in the Senate.

“I entered the campaign to try and bring honor to the Philippines.  But at the same time, I would like to serve as long as possible in the Senate, because I was elected for a six-year term and I have only served for a little over a year,” she said.

After she reports to The Hague, Santiago will serve a 9-year term.

“This victory means that in this region of the world, the Philippines stands as a champion of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and the rule of international law in global affairs.  It is a very tough personal challenge, but I have always liked challenges in my life,” said Santiago, who ran for president in 1992 and placed a very close second, but was denied the right to continue her electoral protest after she was elected senator.

The ICC was established by a treaty called the Rome Statute, in the deliberations of which the Philippines took an active part.  However, under American pressure, the Philippine administration at that time refused to ratify the Rome Statute.

After President Barack Obama was elected, he changed American foreign policy by announcing a new policy of “principled engagement” with the ICC.

Following Obama’s policy change, the Philippine Senate, on the sponsorship of Santiago, voted overwhelmingly to ratify the Rome Statute.  President Aquino immediately nominated her as judge.

In the past, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo similarly nominated Santiago as judge of the older court known as the International Court of Justice. But although Santiago won in the General Assembly voting, she lost in the Security Council voting.

Santiago’s prior candidacy to the ICJ was blocked by the US, because of her stand against the Visiting Forces Agreement; China, because of her close friendship with the Dalai Lama; and Japan, because of her efforts to amend certain provisions of the Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) to favor Philippine nurses.#