Aquilino Q Pimentel Jnr
Senate President and Chairman
Blue Ribbon Committee
Senate of the Philippines
My friends, I will highlight before you today the recent efforts of the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines to fight corruption in our country. The congressional thrust to combat corruption in the Philippines is done mainly in two ways: one, by the passage of laws against graft and corruption, and two, by investigations in aid of legislation into reported anomalies committed by government agencies.
Blue Ribbon Committee
In the Senate, the committee in charge of investigating graft and corruption in government is officially called The Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations. It is more popularly known as the Blue Ribbon Committee. Created some 50 years ago the Blue Ribbon Committee is considered the Number One Committee of the Senate.
A powerful Committee
The Committee exposes government wrong-doing by conducting hearings publicly. After the hearings, it recommends the prosecution of wrong-doers and the adoption of legislative or administrative measures to prevent a recurrence of the wrong that was done. The Committee has the power to compel attendance of any witness or person under investigation, and is not bound by any technical rules of evidence. These two circumstances make it a most powerful investigating body. It is, however, bound by the provisions of the Constitution, as for instance the provision that guarantees to individuals ‘the right against self-incrimination’. It was her invocation of that right that saved Mrs. Imelda Marcos, widow of the former President, from being cited for contempt by the Committee when she declined to answer certain questions in connection with its investigation of the hidden and illegally-acquired wealth of the Marcos family. However, she had to appear personally before the Committee and invoke the right against self-incrimination; had she not done so the Committee could have cited her for contempt and ordered her immediate arrest and confinement at one of the prison houses in Manila.
Legislative oversight
The duty to implement the law faithfully is of course primarily the responsibility of the Executive Department, but the Legislature have oversight functions over the way Executive Department officials research their functions. Government bureaucracy in our country, like the amoeba, has multiplied many times over in the last 50 years. From its seminal stage in 1902 when the first civil government was introduced in the country bureaucracy has grown into an enormous structure, so huge that the first American Governor General, William Howard Taft, if he were alive today would hardly recognise it.
Hiding crooks
Unfortunate as it seems, through the years since the establishment of civilian government in the country, some crooks have successfully hidden themselves in the interstices of the bureaucracy. It also seems that quite often, they get away with their evil ways, so at the end of their government service ironically they get the pensions which are intended to reward good and honest public servants. The Committee thus has its hands full trying to ferret out the criminals in government, get them prosecuted, and propose remedial legislation or administrative action to prevent the continued wrong-doing or violation of the law. Under my chairmanship, the Committee has conducted 151 hearings of various charges against government wrong-doing in two years.
Firsts
In the last two years, the Committee has logged a number of firsts: for the first time in its history the Committee conducted hearings into the whereabouts of the Marcos wealth in Hawaii, a clear sign that our country recognises that corruption has now become globalised. I suppose that David Chaikin who is coming after me will be talking more about Marcos as well, and he has been a lot of help in our search for the Marcos wealth back home. The Committee also successfully summoned the former President of the Republic to appear before it to answer charges of anomalies against his administration. After the hearings it recommended his prosecution by the Ombudsman. It also recommended the prosecution of a former Vice President for his complicity in the same charges of wrong-doing for which the former President was investigated. The Committee likewise recommended the prosecution of a former armed forces Chief of Staff and several generals of the armed forces of the Philippines for various acts of misuse of the retirement benefi ts of the country’s soldiers. Also the Committee recommended the prosecution of a number of Cabinet members, former and incumbent at the time of their investigation. It is thus a matter of record that the Committee has run after wrong-doers in government without any fear or favour.
Fairness. Fact and perception
As a result, the Committee appears to have merited the public trust and confidence of the people. It has achieved that distinction because as a Committee it has tried to follow the structures of fairness in the conduct of its investigations. As chair, I have insisted that the Committee must not only be fair and just but must be seen or perceived by the people as fair and just in its investigations. One of the most challenging investigations that the Committee has conducted recently dealt with the alleged misuse of government funds and protection of illegal gambling by the then-President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. The investigation led to his impeachment and trial and his subsequent ousting from office on 20 January this year.
Resisting pressure
When the Committee was investigating Mr Estrada there were pressures to stop its investigations. The Committee, however, ignored the pressures and continued with its hearings in aid of legislation. In the event the evidence that it gathered during its hearings was used as the main basis for the Articles of Impeachment that were later fi led against the President before the House of Representatives. Indeed, the strongest grounds supporting the impeachment of the President were taken from the transcripts of stenographic notes of the hearings of the Committee. The Committee hearings were fully covered by the media; millions of people stayed glued to their television and radio sets eagerly following the hearings as if it were a soap opera. Moreover, updates on the case and the transcripts of stenographic notes were regularly posted on the Committee web site enabling the public to follow the investigations more closely.
Impeachment trial
In late November 2000, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Mr Estrada for graft and corruption, abuse of power and acts in violation of the Constitution. The Senate put him to trial in the second week of December of that year. By 16 January this year the impeachment trial was effectively ended when 11 Senators voted to reject the move of the House of Representatives’ prosecutors to open an envelope. It was called Envelope No. 2, that reportedly contained documents incriminatory of Mr Estrada as against 10 Senators who voted to open it.
Voting with losing side
As the President of the Senate, with the vote hanging at 11 opposed and nine in favour of opening the envelope, I decided to vote with the losing side. I voted with the losing side because, among other things, I could not agree with the arguments of the President’s lawyers that the documents in Envelope No. 2 were immaterial and irrelevant. I found that argument absurd because nobody can logically say that the contents of the envelope were immaterial and irrelevant unless it was fi rst opened for our scrutiny. I also felt that preventing the opening of the envelope amounted to suppression of the truth, the very opposite of the reason why the impeachment trial was held in the fi rst place, which was precisely to establish the truth. Besides, I felt that the people would not stand mute in the face of the glaring sophistry of the President’s counsel, which indeed turned out to be the case.
Thus, despite the fact that I was a friend of Mr Estrada I decided to vote to open Envelope No. 2. I voted in this way because in my book considerations of friendship and other interests as well, must stop at the door of duty. For good measure, I also resigned the presidency of the Senate effective upon the election of my successor, which the Senate up to this point has not yet done.
[video clip shown]
"Mr Chief Justice
Senate President, can you explain this vote?"
Aquilino Pimentel
I voted to open the second envelope. I voted to do so because that is the only way to determine whether or not the contents of the envelope are relevant or material to the case on trial. Because of this development Mr Chief Justice, I realised that the ‘No’s had it, and therefore I resigned my Presidency of the Senate as soon as my successor is elected."
People Power 2
The Senate vote, rejecting the opening of the envelope, prodded tens of thousands of our people to resume their participation in the People Power demonstrations at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) Shrine. Four days later, on 20 January, the Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath as the successor of President Estrada at the EDSA shrine before a euphoric crowd of almost one million people.
[video clip shown - swearing in of new President]
In the event Mr Estrada left Malacañang Palace and, as they say, "The rest is history". The second People Power demonstrations peacefully broke down the Estrada government in 2001. The first People Power demonstrations peacefully toppled the Marcos government in February 1986. The fi rst People power demonstrations in the country ousted the authoritarian government of Mr Marcos with minimal loss of life. The second People Power demonstrations improved on the fi rst People Power demonstrations, for not only were no lives lost this time around, not a single shot was fi red to compel Mr Estrada to vacate the Presidency.
Beacon of rectitude
The second People Power demonstrations were no doubt infl uenced by the evidence unearthed by the Blue Ribbon Committee investigations into the charges against Mr Estrada, and although the Committee is a human institution and subject to error, by and large it has been a beacon of rectitude to which people of various persuasions have run for the address of their grievances against corruption in government.
The fi ght against corruption in government goes on to this very day. It is a war that needs to be waged relentlessly, for next to poverty, bureaucratic corruption is the single most pressing problem that we, as a people, must try to address if we are to develop our country as fast as we should in the light of the demands of global competition. Government corruption, as everyone knows, inhibits investment and siphons off public funds to private pockets which should otherwise go into the construction of much-needed public infrastructures.
Archaic laws and rules
As we move towards globalisation of trade and commerce, and as communication shrinks the earth, we fi nd that the laws and rules promulgated decades ago have become archaic and inadequate. Governments have to be sensitive to these changes. Graft and corruption now transcend the territorial boundaries of nations. Tainted wealth is often deposited in and moved out of foreign banks at the touch of a computer mouse. Some banks in Europe for instance are generally believed to be the depositories of questionable accounts from the Nazis of Germany, Selassie’s Ethiopia, Pahlavi’s Iran, Marcos’s Philippines, Noriega’s Panama and Suharto’s Indonesia, among many countries. Because of bank secrecy laws, it is very diffi cult for a country whose coffers have been plundered to recover what has been stolen from it. The same technology that has shrunk the world is, ironically, being used to facilitate the transfer of stolen money from one country to another, and effectively cover its trail. As correctly pointed out by our conference organisers, without close co-operation between governments and private institutions, international financial fraud becomes impossible to contain.
As a feeble attempt to respond to the problem I fi led a Bill that gives financial rewards to individuals or institutions, foreign or domestic, that provide information leading to the recovery of the country’s plundered wealth. The reward is higher for information that is supplied by an institution or a corporation. The carrot in the form of higher rewards is purposely intended to encourage depositor banks of plundered loot or corporations holding such loot to come forward and report the ill-gotten hoards in their vaults. Incidentally, there are also any number of Bills pending in the Senate that have to be acted on regarding money laundered in the Philippines or elsewhere.
Making "perfect crime" imperfect
Despite the present diffi culties confronting the search for plundered wealth that is stashed in banks and other institutions abroad or in the country, I am confi dent that science and technology will soon make it unprofi table for criminals to park plundered funds anywhere in the world. I am encouraged that savants predict an end to organised electronic crime within the coming decades. Optimistically I believe that in our lifetime we may witness the exposure of a crime committed or a fi nancial fraud hidden today in no time at all. The Internet in particular, and information technology in general, will soon make the "perfect crime" imperfect, and make the identifi cation, arrest, prosecution and conviction of criminals the world over more easy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the experience of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s fi ght against government corruption shows that while its resolutions are mainly recom-mendatory, first, as a Committee of the Senate it helps to expose criminal wrong-doing in government, facilitate the prosecution of criminals in government, or shame them into resigning and restore the confi dence of the people in the processes of government. Secondly, as a Committee of the Senate it helps to deter wrong-doing in government by proposing remedial legislation or administrative action. Thirdly, as a Committee of the Senate it helps to protect the people’s rights and liberties that are assailed by government bureaucrats.
Thank you very much.[applause]
Prime Minister's Letter, IFex Fraud Convention 2001
