|
Inday
Varona:
Shortly after the Glorietta blast you [reminded] Sen.
Antonio Trillanes IV, who was already claiming the blast
may have been the handiwork of the Arroyo administration,
to cool down and let cops investigate the incident; you
seem to have changed your tone a little bit. As former PNP
chief, do you see anything unusual or anomalous in the
investigation that could perhaps raise suspicions of a
possible Arroyo administration culpability?
Lacson:
I did not directly caution Senator Trillanes. I just said
it’s too early for anybody to speculate, and unfounded
conclusions won’t help the investigation. But I also did
not think that a former officer of the Philippine Navy and
now a senator would speak if he had no basis for doing so.
And then, Saturday, when there was a national-security
meeting inside
Camp Crame,
the finding of RDX—the C4—found in the blast site, of
course, reinforced the theory it was a bomb. And that was
when I said—it was hypothetical, actually—that if it was
truly a bomb, and the intelligence community had no
inkling whatsoever about it, that it was proper for
Norberto Gonzales, the national security adviser, to
resign. But it was premised on the finding at that time
that RDX was found. And then the theory arose that it
could be an accident. Up to now, the PNP findings are not
conclusive; they just said there are strong indications it
was an accident.
Senator
Trillanes is still insisting he has evidence of the
[complicity of government men] in the Glorietta blast. So
I’d like to wait for whatever evidence he’s going to
present from here on.
Butch del
Castillo:
I’m playing devil’s advocate here—don’t you think it’s too
much that everything that happens in this country is
blamed on President Arroyo?
Lacson:
It boils down to credibility. If a government enjoys high
credibility, perhaps even if there were indications that
some government people may be involved, still the
government won’t be so hastily blamed. But this government
has been mired in one controversy after another, so that
every time something happens, people naturally include it
as a suspect.If that’s the case, perhaps the government
must do something to raise its credibility.
Del
Castillo:
Do you believe that at this point of her term, she should
step down?
Lacson:
It’s not for me to tell her to step down, and no matter
how we cry to high heavens for her to resign, she won’t,
so we shouldn’t waste our voice shouting.
Varona:
When you talk about the government trying to turn around
the problem of credibility, what concrete suggestions can
you offer? What can they actually do to improve?
Lacson:
Cut out the lip service, do more tangible things. When you
have an anomalous ZTE contract for which they insist on
covering up, and then they backtrack and yet even refuse
to admit it’s been cancelled; when money changes hands so
brazenly in the Palace and they say no one knows about it,
then the League of Governors suddenly owns the money and
yet doesn’t know what bank it came from, you have a
problem of credibility. So we can’t just improve
credibility with words. We, the people—media, us senators,
the public—must see that reforms are really happening.
Jimmy Gil:
Some observers say our Human Security Act [HSA], of which
you were one of the principal authors, is automatically
suspended a month before elections and two months
thereafter. Isn’t that a bit strange?
Lacson:
Yes, that’s strange, but it was an amendment introduced by
Sen. [Aquilino] Pimentel Jr. In his view, it could be used
to harass the political opposition. So we decided to
support the suggestion, because at that time political
tension was high, and indeed, the administration might use
the HSA to harass the political opposition. But yes, it’s
a bit strange. I think this is the only country where
that’s done. Perhaps this is also the only one where an
anti-money laundering act is passed but is suspended
during the election period.
Gil:
As a senator, don’t you plan to remedy the situation and
bring it down to reality? Terrorism or any form of
thievery—those won’t stop during elections.
Lacson:
Maybe we’ll consider that when the political situation
changes. Because right now, if we introduce an amendment,
for instance, it’ll be hard to pass because, again, we’ll
go back to the issue of credibility of those in power.
Maybe when people are convinced there’s a level playing
field, where the powers of the presidency or the state’s
vast powers aren’t used to harass critics, and laws are
applied uniformly, then’s that’s the time to have the
amendments.
Del
Castillo:
How about the public perception that the Senate doesn’t do
anything but hold investigations, and legislative work
seems to be on hold?
Lacson:
Shouldn’t we be thankful that at least the next generation
can be spared paying for [a loan of] P16 billion? If we
didn’t investigate the ZTE, if we didn’t raise a
collective howl of protest, would this have happened? You
see, there’s a provision in the change order’s clause that
fixes the amount at $329 million. But the rate of
technological obsolescence is rather fast. Experts we
consulted told us it’s 15 percent per year. In other
words, if we borrow $329 million or P16 billion for the
technology as it stands today for the NBN project, after
one year you’d have to deduct 15 percent from the value
[of the project]. How do we catch up with technology if we
can’t enforce the change order?
But when
we change order, taxpayers will also pay for it since the
project is owned by the government. We borrow just so the
government can have a national broadband network. We
thought it’s better to have the private sector do this and
spend for it; the government can simply subscribe so we
don’t have to worry about maintenance. But if we didn’t
investigate [ZTE], what would have happened?
As for the
bribery scandal, if we allow money to flow out every time
there’s a political crisis, Malacañang will always use
people’s money to bribe allies. Should we allow that? We
were also elected to do oversight functions; to
investigate as well as legislate.
Del
Castillo:
One direct question, Sir. Will you run in 2010?
Lacson:
It’s too early, it’s just 2007. If you state you’re
running at this point, they’ll always say you’re
politicking whenever you expose shenanigans. Imagine,
giving P500,000 per governor—I was reading former national
treasurer’s [Leonor Briones] column—she estimated the
P500,000 won’t have much impact on a governor or
congressman—when he reaches home, he’ll tell someone, keep
that and use it tomorrow for [his] shopping. But to an
ordinary citizen, that is something to be used for rice,
medicine, books—wow, that’s a lot.
Now, don’t
wonder why government’s credibility suffers because, in
spite of poverty in the countryside or in the urban areas,
people cannot even buy or smell good food—they don’t know
when they can “graduate” from eating nothing but noodles.
Then they hear of one congressman or governor alone
getting P500,000. Worse, we’re fooled, they say they don’t
know about it when it happened inside Malacañang. Isn’t
that nauseating? So don’t blame use for investigating
because, no matter what motive you ascribe to me, I, for
one, I will not stop exposing. I had a meeting with
Speaker [Jose] de Venecia Jr., some people reported we
were talking about impeachment. Very clearly, I told him,
I just wanted three things, all rolled into one. That was
the time when the issue of reviving “Hello, Garci” was
hot, and I think the Speaker wanted to help out Mrs.
Arroyo by calling for a cease-fire. I said, I don’t have
to meet Mrs. Arroyo personally: all they have to do is
stop doing those things that deserve to be exposed and
criticized, and I’ll stop the exposing and criticizing.
Ed Tipton:
In your mind, what should the Senate accomplish during
your term other than the investigations that you now, or
the Senate, is undertaking?
Lacson:
Investigations are only done in order to improve
legislation, by plugging loopholes in existing laws. For
example, in RA 3019, 6713, in the articles 210-212 of the
Revised Penal Code. Even though the provisions against
corruption are there, it still happens. We should probably
look into the financial management or the movement of
funds especially if cash is involved. How come the
President can keep hundreds of millions, if not billions,
of pesos in various departments, and she’s the only one
who can order the DBM to release them? Probably without
even asking the secretary or the head of the department
itself. Perhaps it’s time to tighten financial management
of departments when it comes to disbursement of funds,
especially. I noticed that the DBM and the COA are strict
on the movements of funds of the departments, but very lax
when it’s the Office of the President giving the order to
release. Maybe it’s time to revisit the authority of the
COA. I see only one barrier to progress—corruption. And I
hope the Senate, in our own small way, can contribute to
plug all those loopholes in the laws on corruption. That’s
what I want to accomplish in the Senate.
Tipton:
Do you have a personal timetable to accomplish this noble
objective?
Lacson:
The Senate is a collegial body, not one senator can
advance his advocacy. I’ve been advocating the proper use
of pork barrel—the priority development assistance fund.
But the most I can do is to do away with my own pork
barrel. I cannot impose on my colleagues, but somehow,
perhaps there must be a proper mechanism by which
pork-barrel allocations can be used well—not a situation
where you have 20 percent for the legislator, 10 percent
for the mayor-proponent, 2 percent for the COA, 5 percent
to 10 percent for public-works [people], 2 percent for NPA
and other things besides.
Tipton:
In terms of foreign relations, is the Senate going to give
more attention to bilateral agreements which need approval
by the Senate?
Lacson:
Yes, ratification of treaties necessarily passes through
the Senate, but in the proper way. For example, the most
controversial treaty or agreement right now is the Jpepa,
and so many discussions have been held, including its
constitutionality. But because it’s our mandate, we should
look into [it] because, after all, in foreign relations,
we should always think from our side, what is the benefit
to the country? We won’t think about its benefit to Japan
or America. When we sign a bilateral agreement or a
treaty, we always look at our own interest, our national
interest.
Varona:
Speaking of corruption, former President Estrada, who has
been been convicted of corruption charges, after saying
“no deal, no deal, no deal,” apparently is now going to
deal with the government, without, of course, expressing
regret yet for whatever he’s done. As somebody who is so
staunchly anticorruption, what’s your view here? Is
accountability compromised in these apparent deals between
President Arroyo and Mr. Estrada?
Lacson:
It’s not clear that there’s a deal between them. What we
only hear is a request for pardon and apparently, it will
be granted. And I’d like to give it to the former
President—and all of us, even I—I’m not saying I will do
the same thing, given the same situation where one is
being squeezed and pardon is dangled; but given the same
situation, nobody among us would not know how to react.
Here’s a 70-year-old son with a 102-year-old mother in
that physical condition who could go anytime. Perhaps, in
President Estrada’s mind, in her dying days, he just wants
to be there for her; that’s good enough for him. So, I
don’t want to second-guess, or judge the change of heart
of Mr. Estrada on his uncompromising position before not
to recognize the legitimacy of the presidency of
Mrs.Arroyo.
Gil:
If presidential pardon is given to Mr. Estrada, all of his
rights will be restored; how would that affect the 2010
presidential elections considering that it’s not
far-fetched that he could make a second try [for the
presidency]?
Lacson:
My limited knowledge of constitution Law says that in a
presidential election or reelection, no president can seek
another term. But again, if it comes to a legal question,
only the Supreme Court can interpret that. But with my
little knowledge of that particular provision, I don’t
think—this is my personal interpretation of what is
written in the constitution—I don’t think President Erap
can still run as president.
Gil:
He didn’t finish his term.
Lacson:
The constitution is silent on whether one finished his
term or not, it only says a president is limited to one
term.
Gil:
So, that doesn’t bother you for 2010?
Lacson:
No, if he runs, who knows? We can’t say who’ll support
him. For all you know, I might support him, if he really
runs. It’s too early to talk about 2010.
Varona:
Okay, let’s talk about 2004 instead. The Senate is now
investigating whether or not to reopen the “Hello, Garci”
scandal that the opposition says is proof that Fernando
Poe Jr. was cheated. How do you feel, considering that if
you had not pushed through with your candidacy—they call
you a spoiler—then maybe there wouldn’t have been a
“Hello, Garci” and Mr. Poe might have been president.
Lacson:
I’m not looking at myself as the spoiler or the
“illegitimate opposition candidate”—as one columnist
mentioned in his column. I was there before—I was an
original member of the LDP, the dominant opposition party.
All I was asking my partymates at that time was a fair and
just selection process. I was the first to declare my
intent. I’m not saying that gave me the rightful claim
because everybody else in the opposition who wanted to run
as the candidate had a right. But to tag me now as the
spoiler, or the illegitimate opposition candidate, is a
little unfair because all I sought was a fair selection
process among the candidates—like a primary. But that was
denied. Not one decent soul in the party told me, “Hey, we
won’t have a selection process, we’ve just handpicked FPJ.”
So pinning
the opposition loss on me, that’s wrong. Even if we had a
unity ticket, for example, don’t you think that, from what
we learned about “Hello, Garci” and all the cheating done
in the 2004 election, the mindset to cheat in the camp of
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would have been there? Even if we
had a combined 2-million to 3-million lead, they’ll just
ask Garci to adjust the padding to get the desired lead
over us.
Varona:
So you
have no regrets over your decision?
Lacson:
No
regrets, no regrets. Given the same situation, I will go
through the same experience. It’s a matter of
self-respect.
Butch
Fernandez:
Sir, if it
is shown that the payoff at the Palace is irregular, what
is the minimum liability of the League of Governors, which
is claiming credit for what is seen as a bribery case?
Lacson:
First, I
don’t believe that the money came from them. Second, the
culpability may reach up to the Office of the President.
When we speak of money of that magnitude, and if it’s
government funds—the accountability will likely reach the
Office of the President. No matter how they cover up, they
will only be digging themselves into a deeper hole. The
League of Governors said they gave the money. Question: do
they have an account at Bank of Commerce? If so, how long
has that account been, and how much?
Varona:
Sir, granting that the League of Governors has its own
legitimate bank accounts, have you ever heard of envelopes
of cash in that amount being dispensed for community
projects, without even signing for them?
Lacson:
None, that’s why a question is raised. No receiving note
signed, no voucher, no official receipt? That alone gives
them criminal liability under the law. These are funds
coming from contributions of provincial capitols, so [it
is the] people’s money.
Varona:
Some
people say the US won’t ever allow you to be elected
president because you’re seen as the inducer of Michael
Ray Aquino in getting those
US
documents?
Lacson:
If ever, the ones who’ll vote for me are Filipinos, not
Americans. |
