Transcript of Senate media interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

ON SENATOR PANFILO LACSON'S PRIVILEGE SPEECH

The Rules of Court, particularly on Evidence, states that evidence suppressed is evidence adverse. If you kept the evidence secret, the presumption is that the evidence is bad for you. The question here is, as Senator Lacson himself admitted, apparently before his appointment as PNP chief, during his tenure as PNP chief, and after his tenure, President Estrada agitated for the legalization of jueteng on the ground that it will give employment to the masses. But if there was illegal jueteng under the table, then that would be immoral. However, if what Senator Lacson is saying is true, that even before he was appointed he already learned of the attitude of his boss, the President, then why did he still accept the appointment? And during his tenure as PNP chief, there were activities that alerted him to the fact that the President was not wholehearted in supporting the drive against jueteng, why did he not resign? During the impeachment trial of President Estrada, Senator Lacson could very well have volunteered as a witness for the prosecution, but he did not. So apparently these gentlemen are just trying to point fingers at each other because they have both been implicated in the double murder cases pending in court. It is possible that these gentlemen might even be named as suspects in those double murder cases. I humbly submit that the proper venue then should be a court of justice and not the Senate.

There is also a political aspect because President Estrada had already declared himself a presidentiable in the coming elections. Senator Lacson had effectively removed himself from the competition. So why should one ex-presidentiable focus on one presidentiable and not all of the others? But the most telling point of all is why only now? The timing is suspect.

Does this mean that Senator Lacson was complicit in all of these alleged illegal activities of then President Estrada? That is the other side. It is always best to be broadminded. But it is very suspicious that Senator Lacson did not reveal all these allegations before. As I said, evidence suppressed is evidence adverse.

On Alfonso Yuchengco's confirmation that he was threatened and intimidated to sell his stake in PLDT

That has great weight as evidence because he was speaking on his own behalf. He was an actual participant in the activity. If that is the case, since one item has been proved, then if this were a court of justice, then that would give weight to the rest of the allegations made by Senator Lacson.