Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said her relationship with Senate President Juan Pone-Enrile, her “ninong” or godfather in her wedding, has turned “ice-cold.”
“We’ll, that’s a status. It does not indicate friendship,” Santiago said answering questions from reporters on Wednesday .
Asked to describe her relationship now with Enrile, Santiago answered, “Ice-cold.”
On Tuesday, a brief tension ensued between the two when Enrile, a staunch critic of the controversial Reproductive Health bill, proposed to remove the phrase “safe and satisfying sex life” in the definition of reproductive health in the bill.
When several senators expressed discomfort over the inclusion of the phrase, Santiago, a co-sponsor of the controversial measure, stood up and expressed her surprise at how her colleagues reacted to it.
“Some of us may find strange the phrase ‘safe and satisfying sex life’ in our legislative vocabulary. That’s because we don’t always deal with international law in this chamber,” she said.
“So it’s mere unfamiliarity that make us hesitate to use this phrase. But if I may, I’d like to volunteer the fact that a safe and satisfying sex life has already become part of international vocabulary on humans right particularly on women’s right.”
“Why are we so aghast at the use of the terms. It’s been (there) for 20 years or more,” she said.
Responding to Santiago, Enrile said: “I must confess my ignorance about international law. I made that proposal because I’m a Filipino legislator. I’m not an international legislator and I’d like to propose the amendments.”
“And if it does not ring well to others who are more brilliant than my knucklehead so be it but I’d like to be voted out,” said the Senate leader.
“Point of parliamentary privilege. I feel alluded to and I resent it,” Santiago said.
“So be it,” Enrile said.
Talking to reporters a day after, Santiago said she was “elated” by their exchanges although she felt that Enrile was getting personal on her.
“He was trying to be snide and sarcastic and I resented it,” she said.
“You know in a debate, you can say anything as long as you keep within the issue. But if you go to personality, that is considered a no-no. That’s hitting below the belt. It’s like saying ‘I don’t like your face because you are ugly’,” she said.
“These are personalities. And to say I’m not as brilliant as others in a very sarcastic way is going to personalities.”