Transcript of Senator Santiago's press briefing

The hearing today by the committee on economic affairs on the blacklisting by the World Bank of three Filipino firms was an exercise in futility. Everybody in the resource panel, or the persons of interest that are invited to testify just stonewalled the committee and refused to say anything. That was laughable. Everybody said they were not guilty. But the following are prima facie guilty:

1. The Secretary of Finance is guilty

2. The Ombudsman is guilty

3. The Secretary of Public Works is guilty

Why? Because as early as November 2007, the World Bank claims it has already given a report to these three agencies and officials concerning the investigation of alleged collusion, which is defined as a crime in the Penal Code, against three Filipino firms.

Today, the Secretary of Finance said that he has a prior commitment. That is acceptable always in the Senate as long as he has a representative. He didn't even bother send an undersecretary with the proper documents when he already knows that the topic is the blacklisted Filipino firms.

Number two, the Ombudsman did not come and did not send a representative. Instead, she claims that there is a rule within the Ombudsman that while a preliminary investigation is under way, there can be no disclosure of the personalities or the events that are under investigation. Is she claiming that the Ombudsman is higher than the Philippine Senate? Is that her claim? Besides, if I remember correctly, the justice department requires prosecutors to finish the preliminary investigations in three months time. The report was given to the Ombudsman in November 2007--it is way past three months time. Hanggang ngayon nag-iimbestiga pa sila. Anong klaseng Ombudsman iyan? Kay rami-raming Assistant Ombudsman diyan...

In the first place, that is just my conclusion. It appears that they did not issue any report. Have you ever heard of any report from the Ombudsman or Department of Finance regarding the blacklisting by the World Bank? I don't know of such report. I don't see it in the internet, it's not posted there. So I presume they did nothing. Of course they can claim they are still in the process of investigation. My foot. That is gross neglect of duty.

Pangatlo, itong si Secretary of Public Works, wala naming binabanggit kung sino ang natuklasan niyang fixer diyan sa public works, o ang mga kausap nitong mga firms.

Number four, ang mga blacklisted firms tinanong: sino ang kinakausap mo diyan? Dahil iyan ang negosyo niyo e. Sinabi sa amin na lahat iyon kilala [nila]. In other words, we are effectively subjected to a conspiracy of silence. I remind you that under our rule of law, in effect, silence means contempt. Ayaw nilang magsabi ng totoo? E di ang katotohanan siguro ay talagang may kasalanan sila sa pagsabwatan nila. Alam ng publiko iyan e, kaya kapag sinabi mong contractor kaagad mong nai-imagine ay super-yaman na tao, dahil magkakakuntsaba sila, hindi pwedeng mag-isa lang gaya ng sabi ni Sen. Enrile. Magkakakuntsaba sila na palaging mataas ang bid nila. Ang bidding is an auction for the lowest price. Bago ang bidding, itong mga grupo ng magkakakuntsaba ay nagkasundo na kung ano ang magiging lowest bid nila para mas mataas kaysa sa aktuwal na presyo. E di masmalaki na gagastusin ng gobyerno. O kung mababa ang bid, mga second rate o substandard na materyales ang gagamitin nila, kaya palaging sira ang mga kalsada natin. Iyon ang ugat ng problema natin sa public works, iyong collusion among bidders.

Pero hanggang ngayon, walang masabi ang mga opisyales ng gobyerno na nabigyan na ng report ng World Bank kung sino itong mga nakipagsabwatan maliban sa mga private firms. Maaari bang wala silang kasabwat sa goberyno? Palagi silang nananalo e. At anong klase itong public works na na-blacklist napala ang firm, pero sa ilalim ng kanilang regulasyon, blacklisted lang siya para sa proyektong iyon, at pwede pa rin siyang mag-participate sa ibang bidding. Para palang wala silang disiplina doon!

Ang pinaka-importante punto ay ganito: Kung nakipagsabwatan, sabi ng World Bank, itong tatlong kumpanyang ito, sino pa kaya ang nakikipagsabwatan? Ito lang ang alam natin; sino pa ang hindi natin alam? Iyan dapat ang unang katungkulan ng DPWH, dapat sa halip na magpapel-papel sila, mag-issue sila ng mga procurement regulations o ng mga blacklisting regulations nila, ang unahin nila ay ihinto nila ang pakikipagsabwatan. Iyon ang pinakamalaking problema ng public works. Maski sino pwede mong bigyan ng pera makakagawa ng kalsada o ng school building. Hindi kailangang genius o Einstein. Kaya walang kwenta ang ating infrastructure system dahil ang mga kalsada, tulay, school buildings, o ospital ay agad nasisira dahil binubulsa nila ang pera kung loan man na pinahiram sa ating ng World Bank, o sarili natin na galing sa buwis ng mamayan.

If we are going to exonerate people all the time, we might as well not exist in the Senate, we should not hearings anymore. Kaya nagkakaproblema tayo e. Meron bang tututol dito kung sabihin ko that the infrastructure system in our country is highly defective? Umulan lang ng konti , ilang potholes ang susulpot kaagad.

Ngayon, sana ay makita o pumayag ang testigo si Sen. Lacson dahil meron yata siyang eyewitness na nagsuhulan ang mga contractor at ang isang opisyal ng gobyerno. Mahirap naman na sabi lang ni Sen. Lacson, kailangan may ebidensya tayo. Ang ebidensya niya ay ang appointments book ng First Gentleman. Pero you have to authenticate the book, etc. Gayunpaman, sa report ng aking committee, kasama na ang mga secondary committees at mga kasamang senador, ay imumungkahi ko na irekomenda kay Pres. Arroyo na tanggalin ang Sec. Teves na iyan, i-impeach ang Ombudsman na iyan, at tanggalin ang Secretary of Public Works para madisiplina sila. Palagi tayong nagsasalita tungkol sa disiplina, e di disiplinahin natin ang mga mataas na opisyales dahil sila ang pinanggagalingan ng lahat ng iyan.

How will you come up with a committee report with the two-hour hearing?

Depending on the consent of my colleagues, I will recommend that the President to dismiss Sec. Teves and Sec. Ebdane, and I will recommend that the House of Representatives should initiate impeachment proceedings against the Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty.

Is there any way we can determine who are the persons involved in this collusion?

Only if there is an eyewitness, because naturally there will be no written documentation unless we are extremely lucky, but that is very rare in our trial practice. Sen. Lacson is apparently still in the process in persuading this witness to come out to testify in public.

It is very frustrating for a senator like me to be told what everybody else already knows for a fact. And I'm being told "No, there is no collusion, there is no criminal conspiracy with public works officials. Everything is hunky-dory." It is extremely difficult for me and extremely frustrating.

Under the existing guidelines of the department of public works, there is no concept of preventive suspension. You have to suspend the firm so it cannot go around destroying evidence or threatening witnesses. It has this peculiar provision that if a firm has been blacklisted in connection with a certain project, then of course it would remain blacklisted but for that project alone. It does not get blacklisted for any other project. May kasalanan na siya sa isang krimen, pero sa ilalim ng kanilang guildelines sa public works, puwede pa rin siyang kumita doon sa ibang bidding. E di magco-collusion na naman siya doon. Anong klase iyon?

What I am saying is that there was no point in today's hearing. They are all under oath but they are not afraid of perjury or the crime of false testimony. In other countries, the moment you say "I remind you that you are under oath," they turn pale and they immediately tell the truth. But in this country, no. Anyone can take an oath and tell the complete opposite of the truth and get away with it. I feel insulted.

On recommending the dismissal of Sec. Ebdane

That will definitely serve as a deterrent... If we want to stop collusion among contractors, if you make heads roll, that will certainly serve as a deterrent. Then of course you look at the legislation, then you try and amend it, but it will take a long process. But, if we remove people from their offices, it sends a very clear message that the President will not countenance corruption in her administration. It could be that the President's judgment could be wrong, but that is a risk we have to take. In the case of the Senate, as a former RTC judge, I always apply the principle that if a witness tells a lie at one point, I would have to presume that he is lying at all other points. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. That is an accepted rule in evidence.

What if the President refuses to heed your call?

Then she has to take responsibility for her own actions. The legislative branch has no power to compel the President to remove or appoint anybody in her cabinet.

Apparently he is trying very hard to make the audience perceive that he is a very casual acquaintance of the First Gentleman. So will have to have strong evidence to overcome his protestations of innocence because the presumption is in his favor. That is why this eyewitness has to come out, otherwise, I have no choice.

You cannot say that the World Bank did this summarily because you can already see the process in the internet alone. The country director of the World Bank has written my committee explaining and asserting that they did an intensive process, and then he cites the fact the officials of the World Bank who were instrumental in moving the process alone are all respected individuals.