I am writing because I am upset and angry that the Inquirer published an article written by Dr. Antonio Montalvan (“Coming soon: Miriam vs Benhur,” Opinion, 5/19/14) that was obviously written to discredit the Abads and, more so, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago. Only a small portion of the article talked about Santiago, but the title was about her and Benhur Luy! Didn’t Mr. Montalvan read the news that Miriam was not on any list? Both Luy’s current and former lawyers have confirmed this.
By Antonio Montalvan II
In a heritage survey tour of Batanes last year, the group paid a courtesy call to the House representative of the lone district of the province, Dina Abad. The name should instantly ring a bell. She is, of course, the better half of Budget Secretary Butch Abad, whom she has succeeded in the congressional merry-go-round that even the beautiful and pristine Batanes islands have succumbed to. Locals told us that no visit to Batanes should ever omit a courtesy call on Congresswoman Dina. That sounded more like a warning.
By Mario Guariña III
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is right. The peace agreement between the Aquino administration and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front over a piece of territory they call the Bangsamoro is illegal. No matter how hard President Aquino tries, he cannot hide the fact that the deal crafted under his direction runs afoul of our fundamental law. The constitutional infirmities stick out like a sore thumb.
By Oscar Franklin Tan
Why has public debate so glaringly ignored the objection that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (Edca) with the United States is potentially unconstitutional because it must first be ratified by our Senate as a treaty? This issue was raised by no less than Senate President Franklin Drilon and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, two of our most highly respected lawyers.
The Inquirer’s editorial last April 21 (“Gigi’s home”) noted Sen. Miriam Santiago’s perorations on the guilt of former Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile: “On earlier occasions, Santiago thought the evidence against Enrile was enough to sustain her judgment that he was the real mastermind of the scam. But now we hear differently: ‘If she won’t testify, our evidence against Enrile is very much lacking…’”