Transcript of Senator Miriam Santiago's interview

On the recent controversial video scandal

Are Filipinos now indifferent to whether one Filipino would upload certain sex videos? I don't think that we have reached that stage or we shall ever reach it because of our Asian culture. So what he has done is anti-culture. That is basically the definition of lasciviousness or lewdness in law. You have to accept community standards. In other words, you have to consider the community in which you are operating. If he wants to do this kind of thing, if he gets a kick from it, he has to go to a country where the culture allows it, not in the Philippines .

Is there a need for legislation?

This is a problem that faces internet providers and users all over the world. Even in the United States they cannot simply prevent predators from preying on very young girls, some of whom have ended up dead. We can actually do it technologically, but we will have to spend a lot of money, and then there would be a great national debate on free expression and censorship. So this will not end here summarily. It will be just the beginning. It will begin a national debate.

Can the victims file charges against the doctor? What charges can be filed?

Of course--at the very least unjust vexation. But you can make it a higher or bigger crime because the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution. Notice for example in wiretapping, even if you are one of the two persons talking at a two-way conversation even you cannot tape the conversation without the consent of the other party. Even if she voluntarily cooperated with the video, still she has her own right of action there. Just because she consented, it doesn't mean that you can broadcast it. That would be the analogy.

Is there a need for any investigation?

I think so because now it raises the question of how often this is done and how many have been the victims. It is to me a direct affront to our community in terms of our community values. That is the essence of prurience: defying community standards.

On Ret. Gen. Yano facing the Commission on Appointments

Ang objection nila kay Gen. Yano is a general objection to all non-career officials, you don't have to single him out. What we have to watch out for is the possible opposition of Sen. Estrada. He did not tell me what the bases are. He might file an opposition. And former Sen. Maceda has already declared he will file a written manifestation. Kaya baka mahirapan itong si Gen. Yano because we have Section 20 of the CA Rules which is in effect a one-person veto, except that it will not apply during the last day before a sine die adjournment. We will make that sine die adjournment on June 5. Even so, it is possible that out of their sympathy to their colleagues in the CA, the members of the commission in plenary session will vote against him. That is very easy, I would say.

On the ethics complaint against Sen. Villar and this morning's ocular inspection of the controversial C-5 project

His basic defense is there is no attempt to mislead the public because there are basically two projects and not just one. An ocular inspection would not only be beneficial to the public interest--in fact it is necessary. We shall then have a battle between the reports of the ocular inspection team of the respondent and that of the complainant. His ocular inspection has no probative value before the committee of the whole. That is the way he wants it to be because he said he will not participate in the proceedings.

I thought I would at first go to tomorrow's hearing because voting is very important, but I have a deep hunch that the minority will go to the Supreme Court. If I voted against proceeding with the trial I will be outvoted anyway. I have a feeling that the minority knows that if we proceed to trial and they continue to snub the proceedings, then automatically even I would have to vote him (Villar) guilty because there is no controverting evidence. I'm sure they will go to the Supreme Court. So we might as well wait for what the Supreme Court will say. The question will be "Is there grave abuse of discretion in crafting the rules of procedure of the committee of the whole?"

Every right in the Bill of Rights is constitutionally guaranteed. If you transcend or violate any of those rights, or reduce or diminish them, then you have committed grave abuse of discretion. There is no longer a 'political question doctrine' in our Constitution, so the court cannot say 'This is a political question. We leave it to the political branch." It can interfere if there is grave abuse of discretion. The formulation of the rules of procedure is vital to the bill of rights for the accused, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to an impartial trial, and so on.