The Rules of the Senate, Rule 34 is entitled “Unparliamentary Acts and Language.” It provides:Sec. 92. Acts and language which offend a Senator shall be deemed unparliamentary.
Sec. 93. No Senator, under any circumstances, shall use offensive or improper language against another Senator.
Sec. 96. Upon the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the Senate may punish any member for disorderly behavior.
Rule 34 is an exception to the democratic principle of parliamentary immunity. Rule 34 implements the Constitution Article 6 Section 11 which provides:
No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or any committee thereof.
Thus, senators enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in the Senate itself. The Senate has the power to hold any senator liable for any speech within its halls. In particular, the Senate may punish any senator who uses “offensive or improper” language against another senator. A senator is free of liability, even if he attacks the President or a cabinet member, or a Supreme Court justice, or the Pope or a cardinal, or any other religious or civic dignitary. Theoretically, a senator would have no legal liability, even if he attacked Jesus Christ himself. But -- and this is the ‘but” I want to underline - - a senator is forbidden to attack another senator.
Last Saturday, the Daily Inquirer ran a story on page one, entitled “Miriam sings different tune on old enemy.” The report quoted three senators, who refused to be identified, casting aspersions on my motives for supporting President Estrada on certain recent national policy issues. To the credit of the Inquirer, immediately the next day, it ran another story presenting my side. Since journalism is literature in a hurry, and reporters are always beating an inexorable deadline, I consider that there is no fault on the part of the reporter.
The fault lies with the three senators who, in the language of the Rules of the Senate, used “offensive and improper language” against me. They reportedly joined in sneering at my recent policy statements, by alleging that I want to be appointed Supreme Court chief justice, and eventually judge of the International Criminal Court.
If I were free to do so, I might consider accepting those two posts, for after all, they stand at the apex of the legal profession to which I belong. But the plain fact is that, at present I am prohibited by law from accepting any presidential appointment for one year, because I am a defeated candidate. In fact, I am the author of a resolution seeking to investigate certain defeated candidates who have accepted appointment to government posts, notably the Philippine National Bank.
Furthermore, although I may aspire, long-term, to become one of the first judges of the International Criminal Court, the fact is that it does not exist. The treaty establishing this Court was approved only this year in Rome, and I was even there. But the United States refused to sign the treaty, thus triggering sensational news on the international front. The treaty will now make the rounds of the countries that have signed it, to seek ratification. In due course of time, that treaty will come before the Philippine Senate for ratification. But until it is ratified by its signatories, the treaty as it now stands simply constitutes a proposal to establish an International Criminal Court.
Thus, although I have most recently supported the President’s policy statements, it was not because I hoped to receive some personal benefit for myself. I understand that in politics, the modus operandi is alternately to support or to defend the President, depending on the personal convenience of the politician concerned. If others want to observe this modus, they are free to do so. But I resent being attacked on this ground, for I do not identify myself with the culture of political opportunism, unlike others.
For six lonely years, I alone stood against a President whom until now I accuse of stealing the election from me. In 1992, both Mr. Ramos and Mr. Estrada separately invited me to run as vice-president. Despite the obvious financial blandishments, I refused, and chose to run without organized campaign funding.
Then I filed an election protest against Mr. Ramos, and for six years I fought the harrowing battle to remain steadfast and unwavering in the opposition, against the mighty resources of a sitting, vengeful, and deviously oppressive President. I daresay no other senator in this chamber has done the same, judging by the alacrity with which some senators seized the opportunity to appear with Mr. Ramos at any media event at that time.
This year, one of Mr. Estrada’s biggest campaign contributors again invited me to run for vice-president with him. Again I refused, and this time ran without any campaign funding at all. After Mr. Estrada was declared the winner, I called a press conference, and questioned the sources of his campaign funding. In fact, I question the sources of campaign funding of all candidates, specially those on the national level.
From whom did these candidates get so much money, running to tens and hundreds of millions and even billions of pesos? The wave upon wave of illegal campaign posters alone clearly proved how much money those candidates received. What deals did each candidate cut with his campaign contributors? In comparison, I ran for president on a budget that a mere candidate for mayor would have laughed at.
I don’t recall that any candidate joined my call for reform in the system of campaign funding. I was all alone. Nobody wanted to touch the explosive subject that if a national candidate accepts millions from business syndicates, some of them engaged in crime, then the presidency is held hostage to the special interest of big contributors, and would be hard put to uphold the public interest.
After the elections, I attended law school in Europe. I attended classes at the Center for International Environmental Law in Geneva. I used to work as a Legal Officer at the United Nations in Geneva, and naturally, I met again my old UN friends there. I was aghast, in fact I was stunned, to learn from them how calamitous our economic condition in this country will be, because of the mismanagement of the Ramos administration which for six years did nothing but propagandize a false economic boom, which has now gone bust.
This is why, when I was studying in Europe, I reached an intellectual decision to extend cooperation, if justified by my ideological principles, to the sitting president. I shall remain an unremitting foe of Mr. Ramos, because he stole the election from me. But in contrast, even as an opposition senator, I shall be supportive of President Estrada, if his views on national policy issues coincide with mine.
In this very chamber, I recently delivered a speech opposing President Estrada’s proposal to amend the Constitution. I don’t recall that any senator associated himself with me, except my partymate, Senator Francisco S. Tatad. I don’t recall that any senator issued a press statement similarly opposing the President on this issue. If any senator wants to sit on the fence until there is a clear indication of which way the wind is blowing, then that is his business. Out of courtesy, I refrained from making any adverse remark to the media about that kind of behavior.
In conclusion, I have made this lengthy presentation of my political worldview, because it seems that until now I remain an enigma to some of our colleagues. Allow me to make myself clear. I may not always be right; but insofar as God gives me grace to see the light, I shall act on the basis of what I think is right, and defend my position against all odds, against all threats and intimidation, and certainly against all anonymous carping from the sidelines.
Is there any one in this chamber who is puzzled why I attacked Mr. Ramos non-stop in these halls for six years, and why I am not doing the same to President Estrada? The answer is self-evident. I believe Mr. Ramos stole the election from me, while Mr. Estrada won the election, because he had more money than any other candidate. From this perspective, Mr. Ramos was only a de facto president, while Mr. Estrada is a de jure president. Where and on what grounds Mr. Estrada got his money is something else.
Like all his other presidential opponents, I attacked Mr. Estrada during the campaign. I could hardly have been expected to sing his praises. But despite my best efforts to the contrary, the voters elected Mr. Estrada, knowing of his academic and moral deficiencies. Now Mr. Ramos has started attacking Mr. Estrada. If Mr. Ramos hopes that I would do his job for him by going on the warpath against Mr. Estrada, Mr. Ramos is hoping in vain. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Contrary to the reported snide remarks of three senators, I have no desire to associate myself with a sitting president. Please pardon my immodesty, but I believe I do not need to. Someday, I hope to retire from politics and resume my career in international law, or perhaps in constitutional law, or altogether start a new career in theology. In the immediate future, my plans are to work in 1999 as a scholar in residence at the Bellagio Study Center in Italy run by the Rockefeller Foundation, and to study in 2000 at St. Hilda’s College, Oxford University in England.
But at this time, I now move to constitute the Committee on Ethics, and thereafter to direct that Committee to issue a position paper on the following question:
Is it unparliamentary behavior for one senator to issue to the press a negative remark about another senator,
on condition of anonymity?I am willing to concede that there may be times when the principle of transparency requires one senator to issue to the press a negative remark about another senator. But I submit that it is improper and cowardly for the senator making the negative remark to hide behind anonymity. I have never said to the press: “Please don’t quote me.” A sense of dignity requires that a senator should be willing to face the consequences of what he or she said.
This is my motion that I respectfully submit to this chamber.
But just to get back on a more amicable basis, let me end on a note of levity. When justified, I am willing to cooperate with President Estrada, because I have always been attracted to strong, silent men. I just have a problem with that mustache. And so unfortunately, despite all the nice things I have brought myself to say about him, I don’t think Mr. Estrada and I are destined any time now to walk hand in hand into the sunset.
On the other hand, I have always been repelled by skinny men smelling of cigars and speaking out of both sides of the mouth. That is just too gross. Kaya tuloy ang labanan!
[back]
The Isulong Team: Isulong SEOPh, Isulong Seoph by Benj, Pinoy Isulong by Seoph Martinez and Useless Isulong