Transcript of Sen. Santiago's interview

On the Senate majority deciding to continue the probe on Sen. Villar

I completely agree with the decision of the majority of the committee of the whole that there is prima facie evidence against Sen. Villar. The complaint is clearly written and it is very clear on what the charges are and what are the bases of the charges. They have this complaint on one hand, and there is no answer on the other hand. Therefore there is prima facie evidence because the respondent did not care to contradict or to show in what way the complaint is wrong or misguided. So the decision of the majority is correct. If I had been present I would have voted that way because the standard of a preliminary investigation in a criminal proceeding is prima facie evidence. There is prima facie evidence simply because there is no conflicting evidence.

But I think that the minority will not just allow the majority to proceed to a full blown trial and still continue the position that they are going to snub the proceedings because the effect will be, like the preliminary investigation, there will be no contradictory evidence and the majority would then again be correct in convicting the accused because he was given notice and opportunity to be heard, but he himself declined.

So I think what could happen is that any time now, the minority will file a petition with the Supreme Court on the grounds, not that the verdict is wrong, but that there was denial of due process because certain rules of procedure the minority was proposing were not accepted. That should be the question. The issue in the Supreme Court will not be whether the majority was correct or wrong in indicting or finding that the case should be elevated to a higher level. The action of the majority was completely correct because it heard only one side. The other side did not bother to answer. Of course that is prima facie evidence. In the Supreme Court the issue will be did the Committee of the Whole commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to adopt all the proposals for the rules of procedure by the minority? Or if not all the rules, at least those rules that the minority will try to point out are essential to due process of law. The question will be, was there grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Committee of the Whole when it denied according to the minority due process of law by not accepting certain rules of procedure that the minority tried to get the Committee to approve but which are rejected.

There is no clear cut question on whether the action was unethical. On the level of legality, that is perfectly legal because there is no rule in the Senate Rules of Procedure that those who bring a complaint against their fellow senator should be disqualified. Even if as in this case, they are not just ordinary senators but are already in effect announced aspirants for the presidency and Mr. Villar also belongs to that category. But if we're talking law, there is no such prohibition in the Senate Rules of Procedure or anywhere else. The Constitution is just completely silent about it. So the procedure of allowing presidentiables who of course have a vested interest in removing Sen. Villar from a privileged position as Senate President has no violation in law. But the next question is, if it was not illegal, was it nonetheless unethical? Because not all that is legal is ethical or moral. That is a question which each one of them has to answer for himself, since questions of ethics do not necessarily have to be transformed into legal proscriptions. So questions of ethics in the further analysis turn into questions of individual conscience.

Is there a need for third party experts in the probe?

I don't think so. Because in the Rules of Court if there is a debate on the real situation or the physical situation, then all that the court has to do is approve a motion for ocular inspection. In this case, the problem with the ocular inspection conducted by Sen. Villar himself, was that there was no representative from the Committee of the Whole. He may have convinced the media, he may have convinced the public, but he cannot introduce the results of that ocular inspection as evidence in his favor in the Committee of the Whole. It has no probative value. Also, since there is no question about the physical location of the events described in the complaint, there really is no need for third party investigators because these places will not move by themselves. They are permanent fixtures. All that they have to do is use an objective eye. The question here seems to be that they cannot meet on what are physical landmarks that are involved. They seem to be talking of cost purposes and not to be talking about the very same road or extension.

The basis of the crime is the intent to commit a crime. If for example this matter has been misunderstood as Sen. Villar alleges, and they actually refer to two separate projects, and therefore efforts should have been undertaken so as to prevent confusion about the identity of the two separate projects; but if there was no intent to mislead the public then there is no crime involved and you cannot hold the senators responsible simply because we approve the budget as a collegiate body.

On Hayden Kho pleading insanity as a defense against sex video-related charges

Insanity is very easy to raise but it is very difficult to prove. That is the problem in trial court. To prove insanity you have to prove that a person is so far removed from reality that he no longer has a clear grasp of reality as all the rest of the community sees it. But he appears to be fully cognizant of reality. He has never appeared in public that he has indicated other signs of insanity. So he cannot claim that overnight that he became insane. That defense of insanity is not going to prove useful to him at all. He's going to get convicted if that is his only defense.

In my view, unless he can come up with another theory apart from the insanity theory, he has no defense. The video convicts him. Unless of course he claims that that is not him, that is not her, and so on. His best available defense there is mistaken identity but I don't think so if you watched the video carefully, which I have not done. I think that would be a very far fetched defense.

Is the distributor of the video also liable?

They're liable because he's pandering to the crime itself. He becomes a principal not only an accessory. But you have to prove how did he in effect, conspired to become complicit in the offense. Because as has been pointed out, you cannot censor the Internet unless you have major high technology equipment as they have in China or in some areas in the Middle East .

Are the vendors of the DVD's of the video liable?

They also have criminal liability but it is generally considered de minimis, meaning they have marginal participation in the crime itself. And it enters the domain of the public, so basically the attitude of the courts should be liberal with respect to these peddlers. Otherwise you'd have to examine the possibility of punishing all those who downloaded the video.