Press Release
November 10, 2008

Transcript of interview with Senator Miriam Santiago

On the challenge on the jurisdiction of Santiago's committee over the case of the Euro generals

I already settled it according to the rules of procedure. When there is a challenge to jurisdiction it can be resolved and the investigation could proceed, that's what the Senate Rules say. Maybe some senators just want to get into the act, maybe they just want another investigation so that everyone's face would appear in your TV screens. I don't really care. If they want another one, then let's have another one. What would be the response of the public? Each of us has to answer to the public.

Especially now that there is a letter from the Moscow customs department requesting Caringal and Mrs. Versoza to explain themselves. This letter was sent by Moscow to the DFA. So what more proof do you need that international relations are involved? Besides, the language of the rules of procedure is very broad. For example, the Bolante case was investigated by the committee on agriculture. Agriculture does not limit itself to planting seeds and harvesting rice. In the same way, foreign relations does not limit itself with treaty ratification. It can investigate any anomaly. It has been done by other committees. So why make a case of the fact that the committee on foreign relations should not be investigating an anomaly?

On reopening the Senate investigation on the fertilizer fund scam involving Bolante

Yes, definitely, for the following reasons: 1) if we do not reopen the case now that Bolante is in the country, then that will set a very bad precedent that might be followed in future cases; that if a witness does not wish to testify or wish to honor the invitation a subpoena in the Senate, all he has to do is to escape abroad and try to be surreptitious, and wait until the committee report has been finished and then return. If we do not reopen the Bolante case, then the example would have been set that even if he is already in the country, he no longer needs to appear before the Senate. That certainly will be a diminution of public respect for the senate and of the coercive powers of the Senate.

Another reason is Bolante apparently told media that he is willing to come as long as he is invited, and there is no necessity for an arrest warrant. We can try that first, why not.

The third reason is Senate proceedings are completely autonomous of any government agency in any other branch, so no other proceeding serves as an obstacle to the conduct of a hearing in the Senate unless the appellate courts issue a TRO.

One more reason: if we do not reopen the Bolante case now that he is here, the public will suspect that some of these senators who are arguing against the opening of the case simply want to protect Bolante. Whether that is fair or not to them is another issue, but we'll have to erase this growing suspicion in the mind of the public.

The final reason is Bolante cannot be allowed to go forum shopping, meaning to say that he is not the proper person to say where he wants to testify. When the Senate calls, we should ingrain in the minds of the public that they have to come whether they like it or not.

News Latest News Feed