Santiago: Is this the right path?
Saying it has never been this putrid, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago called on the Commission on Audit (COA) on Monday to investigate Malacañang’s fund releases after the Senate ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona in May last year.
Santiago admitted being “heartbroken” over the release of at least P50 million worth of pork barrel to each senator who voted to convict Corona, calling this a divergence from President Aquino’s “straight path.”
“This is so far from daang matuwid! Please, President Aquino and (Budget) Secretary (Butch) Abad, tell me it’s not true,” the outspoken senator said in a statement. “When Greek mythology discovered the stinking Augean stables, it never anticipated the fetid and putrid pork barrel stables of corrupt Philippine politics.”
Senate President Franklin Drilon confirmed Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s revelation in a privilege speech last week about the release of at least P50 million in pork barrel to senators following Corona’s conviction.
But Drilon clarified that the amount was part of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) that was withheld during the impeachment trial. He denied it was a bribe; Estrada claimed it was an incentive for the senators.
In May 2012, the senators voted 20-3 to convict Corona for dishonesty in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. The three who voted against conviction were Santiago, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Joker Arroyo.
Abad confirmed that 20 senators received a total of P1.107 billion in additional pork barrel a few months after Corona’s conviction.
Abad said the funds came from the so-called Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) introduced in 2011 to “ramp up spending and help accelerate economic expansion.”
Drilon, then chair of the finance committee, got P100 million; Sen. Francis Escudero, P99 million, and then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, P92 million.
In a letter to COA Chair Grace Pulido-Tan calling for an inquiry into the alleged bribery of lawmakers during Corona’s impeachment trial, Santiago listed several points that she said the public wanted to know from the DAP releases.
These included the particular dates on which each disbursement was released to the senator or representative; the legal explanation, if any, for giving special treatment to Enrile, Drilon and Escudero; the projects for which the three senators, and representatives spent their DAP allocations, and the actual cost of each project; the COA rule, if any, on senators and representatives who applied for, and willingly received, the DAP allocations reportedly made in August, October and December 2012.
“I understand that the COA is now busy updating the special audit reports on the PDAF. Nonetheless, I appeal for your early compliance with this request for information, because I believe there is now a compelling state interest in stabilizing the country, in the midst of multiple public outrage,” said Santiago, a former trial judge.
Scams repulsive
Santiago said the “bribery” scam should not distract the public from the P10-billion pork barrel scam allegedly engineered by Janet Lim-Napoles to turn congressional funds meant to ease poverty in the agricultural sector into phantom projects and kickbacks for lawmakers.
“Both scams are equally repulsive. But the alleged bribery scam is intended by the political opposition to cover up the Napoles NGO (nongovernment organization) pork scam,” she said.
Santiago said the DAP releases during and right after the trial constituted bribery under the Revised Penal Code.
She quoted Article 210: “Direct Bribery: Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present received by such officer.”
Every senator who voted to convict and every representative who voted to indict, if each is shown to have received additional pork during and immediately after the trial, is “presumably guilty of bribery,” Santiago said. She pointed to the close timing between the two events.
Under the Revised Penal Code, each senator or representative is guilty of the crime of “knowingly rendering unjust judgment,” the senator said.
She quoted Article 204: “Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor, and perpetual absolute disqualification.”
Supreme Court intervention
Santiago said she would encourage a Supreme Court litigation on the DAP because it violates the “equal protection clause,” which she said is the “keystone” of all human rights.
“The best hope for an impartial adjudication of these abominable abuses of public funds is the Supreme Court. I will initiate a crowd-sourced petition in social media, so that young, idealistic lawyers can raise the proper issues in the high court. I cannot obtain relief from the Senate itself, which now appears to have been complicit in bribery,” she said.
In particular, she said she would like to know if it is legal for the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to “discriminate” among senators.
While all other senators received an average of P50 million, three—Drilon, Escudero and Enrile—either got or close to P100 million each, she said.
Santiago said previous Supreme Court decisions on equal protection were based on the now obsolete rational relationship test.
Equal protection cases, she pointed out, are now based on the strict scrutiny test.
“In releasing funds, the executive branch cannot play favorites when carrying out constitutional commands such as social justice, social services and equal work opportunities. The DAP releases, flawed as they were from the very beginning, played favorites among senators. That was clearly unconstitutional,” she said.
DAP? No such animal
Sen. Sergio Osmeña III on Monday recalled receiving P50 million, but stressed this was not an offshoot of any arrangement with Malacañang.
“If P100 million came in, OK. But there was no arrangement that ‘If you vote for … I will give this to you.’ No, I will not accept that,” he told reporters. “The timing would have been worse if it were given before the impeachment.”
Of the amount he received, Osmeña said, P30 million went to the University of the Philippines in Cebu and P17 million to the construction of classrooms in Negros.
“Pork is not bad. It’s wrong if you use it for kickbacks,” he said. “So I am not against PDAF.” He said he had not heard of the DAP before.
Sen. Ralph Recto, for his part, said he never asked for a single cent during Corona’s trial, but like the other senators, he submitted a list of projects to the DBM months after the trial at the latter’s request.
“As far as I am concerned, it’s all regular PDAF. There’s no DAP. There’s no such animal in the budget,” he told reporters. He doubted it was an incentive. “It went through a normal process.”
“We’re more than willing to open it up to the public. One thing’s for sure, I did not release anything to an NGO,” he added.
