Miriam rejects ethics report, affirms decision to acquit Villar
AMITA O. LEGASPI, GMANews.TV
01/19/2010 | 01:56 PM
A senator on Tuesday maintained her earlier decision to acquit Senator Manuel Villar Jr. of the ethics complaint filed against him regarding the C-5 Road extension project.
In a press statement, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said she did not sign the report drafted by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, chairman of the Committee of the Whole that probed the complaint, because she disagreed with the standard of proof used.
The draft committee report uses ‘credible substantial evidence' as standard, but the standard of proof should be: ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’," she said.
Santiago was one of the 12 senators who signed a resolution clearing Villar of the charges hurled against him by Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madrigal. [See: 12 senators want ethics case vs Villar dismissed]
“On the one hand, I have signed a draft resolution acquitting Sen. Villar of the charge filed against him with the ethics committee, which was later transferred to the Committee of the Whole. On the other hand, I have read the draft committee report, but I choose to dissent, thus affirming my vote to acquit," she said.
She added that the draft committee report even admitted that there is “no direct evidence" against Villar.
“This being so, the lack of direct evidence does not meet the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt." This is why I voted to acquit him," Santiago said.
The senator said there should be a different standard of proof on the two occasions when the Senate exercises its power to investigate.
When conducting ordinary public hearings of a criminal nature – which usually ends in a recommendation for preliminary investigation to the Ombudsman – the Senate uses prima facie standard, which is lower than the “probable cause" principle in a preliminary investigation, she explained.
But when the Senate conducts an ethical investigation of its own members, the proceedings do not end in a mere recommendation to another government agency but, on the contrary, leads to a decision which is immediately executory.
“Hence, the standard of proof should be the same as the standard of proof in criminal cases: ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’," Santiago said.
She added that according to the Senate rules, penalty is imposed by two-thirds vote of the entire membership. The Senate may punish any member for disorderly behavior by either suspending and/or expelling him/her.
An ethics investigation can also lead to a senator’s expulsion, she said.
In the meantime, Gilbert Remulla, Nacionalista Party’s spokesperson, said Villar will answer the findings of the committee but the senator’s camp is still discussing “what the best timing would be."
"Sen. Villar will definitely answer the preposterous allegations and skewed findings in the report of the committee of the whole," Remulla said in a text message to GMANews.TV. - LBG, GMANews.TV
In a press statement, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago said she did not sign the report drafted by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, chairman of the Committee of the Whole that probed the complaint, because she disagreed with the standard of proof used.
The draft committee report uses ‘credible substantial evidence' as standard, but the standard of proof should be: ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’," she said.
Santiago was one of the 12 senators who signed a resolution clearing Villar of the charges hurled against him by Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madrigal. [See: 12 senators want ethics case vs Villar dismissed]
“On the one hand, I have signed a draft resolution acquitting Sen. Villar of the charge filed against him with the ethics committee, which was later transferred to the Committee of the Whole. On the other hand, I have read the draft committee report, but I choose to dissent, thus affirming my vote to acquit," she said.
She added that the draft committee report even admitted that there is “no direct evidence" against Villar.
“This being so, the lack of direct evidence does not meet the standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt." This is why I voted to acquit him," Santiago said.
The senator said there should be a different standard of proof on the two occasions when the Senate exercises its power to investigate.
When conducting ordinary public hearings of a criminal nature – which usually ends in a recommendation for preliminary investigation to the Ombudsman – the Senate uses prima facie standard, which is lower than the “probable cause" principle in a preliminary investigation, she explained.
But when the Senate conducts an ethical investigation of its own members, the proceedings do not end in a mere recommendation to another government agency but, on the contrary, leads to a decision which is immediately executory.
“Hence, the standard of proof should be the same as the standard of proof in criminal cases: ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’," Santiago said.
She added that according to the Senate rules, penalty is imposed by two-thirds vote of the entire membership. The Senate may punish any member for disorderly behavior by either suspending and/or expelling him/her.
An ethics investigation can also lead to a senator’s expulsion, she said.
In the meantime, Gilbert Remulla, Nacionalista Party’s spokesperson, said Villar will answer the findings of the committee but the senator’s camp is still discussing “what the best timing would be."
"Sen. Villar will definitely answer the preposterous allegations and skewed findings in the report of the committee of the whole," Remulla said in a text message to GMANews.TV. - LBG, GMANews.TV
