Miriam slams JPE’s ‘blissful ignorance of the law’

MANILA, Philippines - The war between Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago erupted anew last Thursday, leaving her – as described by her office – on “heart attack mode” as she accused him of “blissful ignorance of the law.”

The two senators exchanged insults in the media over the need for the Senate to conduct an inquiry into the move of two water concessionaires to pass on corporate taxes to customers.

In a statement, Santiago, who is on extended sick leave for chronic fatigue syndrome with heart problems, said Enrile used “an anachronistic provision of the Constitution and was completely clueless about its limitations” when he argued on the Senate floor against the stand of Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who wanted a probe on the matter.

Trillanes delivered a privilege speech asking for a Senate probe into the 1994 MWSS resolution reportedly allowing two water concessionaires – Manila Water and Maynilad – to pass on to consumers some P15 billion in corporate income taxes and other expenses.

Enrile questioned Trillanes on why the Senate needed to review contracts.

Santiago said she blew her top after hearing about the heated argument between Enrile and Trillanes that involved the provision in the Bill of Rights stating, “No law impairing the obligation of contract shall be passed.”

Enrile called this provision as “one of the most sacred provisions of the Bill of Rights” and strongly opposed a Senate probe on the water concessionaires.

Santiago became furious at what she called “Enrile’s blissful ignorance of the law.” 

She said she was wearing a Holter monitor when she got wind of the debates and the gauge monitored an increase in her blood pressure. A Holter monitor is a device used by cardiologists as a portable ECT to indicate the frequency and duration of cardiac rhythm disturbances.

Santiago’s family has a history of genetic heart disease with her two younger brothers, both lawyers, having died of heart attacks in their sleep.

Santiago cited several legal precedents to counter Enrile’s arguments, among them the 1993 case of PNB v. Remigio, where the Supreme Court ruled that “the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, the reason being that public welfare is superior to private rights.”

Responding to Santiago’s tirades, Enrile said he may not be an author of constitutional books but he has enough knowledge of the Constitution.

“Congress, as a lawmaking body, is limited by certain provisions of the Constitution, and one of the limitations of the power of Congress is that it could not pass laws to impair the obligation of contracts. That’s why I raised the issue on what was the purpose of the inquiry,” he said.

Informed that Santiago had issued a statement that she almost had a heart attack upon hearing the debates on the Senate floor, Enrile quipped: “Well, good luck to her.”

The former Senate president then challenged Santiago to report for work instead.

“She is debating with us but she is not on the floor. She should come and perform her job,” Enrile said. “I am not challenging anybody. I do my work as minority floor leader.”

After the debate, Trillanes’ resolution was referred to the Committee on Public Services.

While Santiago has a doctorate in constitutional and international law, Enrile has a master’s degree in tax law and finance. 

The two have been at odds since the administration of President Corazon Aquino, when Santiago served as Cabinet member and immigration commissioner.

Boastful act

Santiago also scoffed at Enrile’s statement that if he would be allowed to appear in court, he would certainly defeat Trillanes.

“He does not want the Senate to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, which is one of our duties. Instead, he wants Trillanes to file a case in court, which is no longer part of our legislative functions,” Santiago said.

She said that under the Senate Rules, “Enrile’s kind of boasting and self-praise at the expense of another senator who is a non-lawyer constitutes unparliamentary language because it offends Sen. Trillanes and the Senate as a whole.’

She said Enrile’s speech was an egregious example of ignorance of the law, used as a tool to bludgeon the heads of non-lawyers. 

“I am very disappointed that none of the lawyers in the majority coalition to which I belong stood up to unmask Enrile’s ignorance,” Santiago said.