Miriam to Aquino: It’s still bribery

Ayee Macaraig

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago also blasts as 'squid tactics' and 'trapo' Senate President Drilon's justification of DAP

'BRIBERY IS BRIBERY.' Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago rejects President Aquino's statement that there is no bribery after the fact, saying there is no time element for bribery in the law. Photo from Karen Davila's Instagram account

MANILA, Philippines – Whether it’s before, during or after the fact, bribery is still bribery.

Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago rebutted President Benigno Aquino III, saying there is bribery after the fact. 

In an interview on ANC’s Headstart with Karen Davila, Santiago disagreed with Aquino’s statement that the P1.107 billion given to senators from the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) cannot be considered bribery because it was given months after the conviction of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

READ: PNoy dares critics: impeach me

“If this is a bribe, assuming for the sake of argument it was a bribe, if it was received several months after the conviction, that is still bribery because a mere promise of something that is accepted by a public official and becomes his motivation for convicting a person or not is already qualified for bribery under the Penal Code,” Santiago. 

“There is no time element involved in bribery. The law does not provide that it was given before and after a criminal act,” she said in the interview on Thursday, October 3.

The senator earlier said she considered the P50 million as a form of “direct bribery” under the Penal Code. 

Santiago also did not spare her colleagues, branding as “squid tactics and trapo (traditional politics)” justifications of Senate President Franklin Drilon and other lawmakers that the DAP was aboveboard because they used the disbursement properly. 

A day ago, Aquino sought to defend the DAP from criticism his administration used it to bribe senators to convict Corona. Aquino said the money could not have been bribery because it was released in October 2012 while Corona was convicted in May 2012.

The President said, “So is there a bribery after the fact?”

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad admitted that an average of P50 million was released to each of 20 senators in 2012 and early 2013 but stressed that the money was not a bribe. He said the DAP was meant to address underspending blamed for the sluggish economic growth.

READ: 2012 fund releases to pols not bribes – Abad

The issue arose after Sen Jinggoy Estrada said in a privilege speech last week that senators received P50 million after convicting Corona. He later dubbed it an “incentive.” Estrada delivered the speech a week after he, and Senators Bong Revilla and Juan Ponce Enrile were named respondents in a plunder complaint before the Ombudsman over the pork barrel scam . They are accused of endorsing fake non-governmental organizations as recipients of their development funds in exchange for kickbacks.  

READ: Jinggoy: P50M for each convict-Corona vote

Out of 23 senators, only Arroyo, Santiago, and Sen Bongbong Marcos voted for acquittal. Marocs and Santiago did not receive funds from the DAP while Arroyo got P47 million in DAP but only in February 2013.

Santiago, former Sen Joker Arroyo, former Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno and Fr Joaquin Bernas SJ, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, have all questioned the constitutionality of the DAP. 

READ: Palace spending program ‘illegal’

READ: ‘DAP budget within a budget, illegal’

‘Unconstitutional on two fronts’

Beyond the bribery issue, Santiago also said the administration’s defense of the legality of DAP was “dead wrong.”

The Palace has said that the Constitution and the administrative code allow the President to realign savings.

READ: Palace cites Constitution to defend DAP 

Santiago though cited Article VI, Section 25 of the Constitution stating that, “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

Santiago said that the word “realign” is not even present in the provision. “The key word here is you cannot transfer. You can only augment. There has to be an existing item in the budget. You cannot just use it to augment another item that does not exist in the budget …. without the approval of Congress.”

The senator said the Palace’s definition of “savings” is also wrong. She said there is only savings when there is money left after the completion of a project.

“But if you did not spend it because of bureaucratic red tape, the bidding process or any other reason for delaying and people are complaining that the Aquino administration is not moving fast enough, so if that is the case, there are no savings.”

“Because what you are doing is you’re cancelling what Congress says is the destination of the money and you’re putting it in your own idea of where the money should go.”

In an earlier interview on GMA7, Palace Communications Secretary Ricky Carandang said that the government’s savings resulted from reforms in the procurement process like Public Works and Highways Secretary Rogelio Singson’s insistence on a bidding process to prevent corruption.

Carandang said, “In the law, it says we can realign savings. We can use the savings for [expenditures] itemized in the budget. This happens in all administrations. It wasn’t just President Aquino who realigned savings.”

Santiago though is unconvinced. She reiterated that another legal flaw of the DAP is that it was selectively released to senators.

While most senators got P50 million, staunch Aquino ally Drilon got P100 million, Sen Francis Escudero got P96 million and Sen Juan Ponce Enrile got P92 million.

“Not only is there serious doubt about its constitutionality on the basis of the fact that it can be interpreted as a bribe but it [also] violates the equal protection clause so it’s unconstitutional on two fronts. You can’t pick and choose among senators. You have to treat them equally unless you can show there is fundamental or compelling state interest why you are making these distinctions,” she said.

She said Malacañang had “a deficit of legal analysis of the situation.”

“They want to respond to the public cry for stimulus spending but they forgot to consult a knowledgeable lawyer on constitutional law.”

Drilon explanation ‘squid tactics, trapo

Santiago said she was “astonished, gobsmacked” upon finding out about the DAP. She said this was the first time she heard about it.

She said Drilon and other senators missed the point when they defended the DAP by saying they spent it properly.

Drilon has said he needed the P100 million to fund infrastructure projects in Iloilo, which was then launching a bid to host the APEC ministerial meeting in 2015. Sen Francis Escudero said his DAP allocation was also spent for infrastructure projects of local government units. 

READ: Drilon admits receiving P100M after Corona trial 

“It’s not a question of where did the money go. The question is constitutional,” said Santiago. “We are lawmakers. We make the law. Our fealty, our obedience is always to the law. It’s not a question of ‘I want to serve the people, I had to get P100 million instead of P50 million because so much is needed for my district.’”

“That is all squid tactics. They are trying to muddy the water, like a crocodile about to drown and splashing around in the river trying to kill as many as possible and take them down with him. They are trying to justify what is basically an unconstitutional action.”

Santiago said though that if there are calls for Drilon to resign, other lawmakers who accepted the DAP must also take the blame. 

“It is reprehensible that anyone can say, ‘Yes I got P100 million and I didn’t tell the public about it and didn’t investigate the constitutional provenance or validity of the project because my people needed it. That is so trapo because if that is the excuse then anybody else can dip his hand in public coffers by using the need of the public as an excuse.” – Rappler.com

 

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!