INQUIRER.net Eleksyon 2007

Joker Arroyo, podcast interview transcript, part 1

INQUIRER.net

JV Rufino: Our guest for this podcast is Senator Joker Arroyo who is running for re-election under the Team UNITY slate.

Welcome to the show, senator. Our first question will be from Lynette Luna, INQUIRER.net breaking news editor.

Lynette Luna: Hello, Senator Arroyo. [Our] first question would be--and I think it’s something that you've often been asked, but for the benefit of our podcast listeners--why are you running for the Senate again?

Joker Arroyo: Ah, that's a very interesting question, I thought of retiring--that's the truth. But, then, I really am worried about after elections. The country may face some kind of a crisis because of-- you know--the fight now is just too much. Both sides are very unforgiving. And there's a possibility that even after elections the fight will continue.

Now, I was just thinking: If I should just stay out--as I thought I should--then what I am afraid of would happen.--It's very difficult to be on the sidelines. In the martial law years, I was outside fighting the government, and that's the terrible thing. I was just thinking if something should happen, then I am within, inside the government. Then that's easier, and I could be more effective. So I don't know.

Perhaps that's the most decisive thing that...that propelled me to run: a fear that the country, instead of being united, is getting more and more divided.

Lynette Luna: Why under the administration?

Joker Arroyo: Well, I ran in 2001 in the People Power Coalition. That was the slate of the President. The fact is that I never left the party, although I criticized the party. I think...just too much, no? So if I run now, it doesn't--it's just that I'm running the same ticket that I ran with the last time.

And also on balance I figured out that if along the way, you’ll ask me questions, I'll tell you why I chose this one, because, as I've said, you know, in a crisis, then the reason precisely why I decided to run again: One cannot be neutral in a crisis. One has to take sides. Because I think that being neutral is for those people, fence sitters and all that, you have to take a position, and, you know, stand by it; and, along the way, you ask me then I'll ask you why, I decided to run for the ticket for this one, for the Administration slate.

So may I continue?

Lynette Luna: Yes.

Joker Arroyo: All right. You see it’s like this: The opposition I've been watching, in my case for instance, in the Senate. I fought the President in the Peoples' Initiative, and I was the one who argued for the Senate. No one else argued. They could have, but they didn't.

The only one in the opposite side who helped was Koko Pimentel, who was not a candidate then, because he argued also the case in the Supreme Court.

Then the case of the EO 464, a direct challenge to the Senate, now I again appear in the Senate and argued against it, against EO 464. Then, when the PCGG [the President Commission on Good Government-ed] tried to abuse its powers, the Senate went to Supreme Court; I argued again, again the case.

In the Venable contract, I am going to the Supreme Court and argued the case. All those cases, I argued and won all of them. No defeats.

Now, in the case of 1017 and another one, I forgot already, for 1017 proclamation, which was an assault on freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, I as chairman of the committee on public services investigated it and came out with that report condemning the attempts of the government to suppress, you know, press freedom.

Now in that case, I mean, I did more than what any single oppositionist, had or would do, but they're very loud [in] saying that the President said had...why those things happened.

All right. I'm just thinking, you know, inspite all that, I had fought fair and square in the venue that it should be fought, which is the Supreme Court. I did not go out to win or court the favor of the public because it would not in the end matter. If I tried to fan the fires, as I did during the martial law years when I was in the forefront of all the fights--not behind but in front of all those who went to demonstrate--well, what would happen to the country? What I'm trying to say is that, I went to the Supreme Court because that is the venue where you have to settle this. The other side tried to destabilize the government. Their response to the problem is to court disaster, encourage rebels, destabilize the government.

I cannot go for that because I already saw what happened. In 1989, we were already ahead. We were hitting I think a six or seven-percent growth rate, then RAM [Rebolusyonarong Alyansang Makabayan-ed] started it's coup d' etat, and then what happened? Our growth rate went into negative. It took us, oh, I think up to 1994 or 1995, midway in the Ramos administration, that we were able to recover.

Now, I find that irresponsible; that if they are dissatisfied, fine. But there's a venue, and the venue...I fought in the Supreme Court and won, without having to destabilize the government. But in their case, no, they want to destabilize the government. They want to overturn, overthrow the government. But when you ask them the question: Supposing you overthrow the government, who will succeed? Then, they will say, well, we will figure it out.

You can imagine...we don't know who will run the government. They even think a revolutionary junta, or whatever. Fine. So the next question: Will you accept [Vice President] Noli de Castro, the constitutional successor? They said, no. They even said: snap elections.

All of those are unconstitutional; all those are illegal. What I'm saying is that, as far as I am concerned, I will follow the constitutional route. I won't deviate from it. Now I cannot be with the group which will rely on the Constitution when it suits them, but will disregard the Constitution when it does not suit them. That's what’s happening with the opposition.

Now in the case of [President] Gloria [Macapagal-Arroyo]. In spite the fact that I'm been fighting her so much, not just once did she tell me: Joker, you slow down please, like this, like this, like that. No, In other words, insofar as she is concerned, she takes defeats. But in this case, no. The Constitution for the opposition is an instrument to regain--to gain power.

It is just an instrument, not the foundation or the basis of our...foundation of solidity of the country, but an instrument to grab power...it's totally unacceptable to me, that the Constitution, which is the foundation of our government, should be used as a tool. That is what the opposition is. So you...I can go on and on all those points alone. How could I [not] go for the Constitution?

As far as I am concerned, I'll stick with the Constitution. I can't deviate from that. Now, I...in the case, for instance, of the Bolante. You can imagine. Senator [Ramon] Magsaysay [Jr.] heard that. As chairman of [the] blue ribbon, I was the secondary committee, but I wrote the report, because Jun Magsaysay, being not a lawyer, said, “you write the report.”

So, I returned--I retained--outside counsel to write the report, and then I went over it. So my signature is there, side by side with Jun Magsaysay. That's the Bolante report. I don't know what are the others. The Comelec [Commission on Elections], the Comelec fiasco. I investigated that. I came out with the findings condemning the Comelec. I forgot already the company involved then. Oh, many other anomalies.

Now, what the opposition had been doing is simply fanning the fires, but not providing the solutions. If they want to do something, they should provide solutions.

So, in these [2004] elections, the [accusations] that have been bandied around--the opposition has to prove that the cheated votes, when I said cheated votes, let us say one million votes, the cheated votes are 300 million, 700 were clean.

Now, it’s a principle in election law, that if the cheated votes cannot overcome the clean votes, then you cannot nullify the elections. Why? Because those who voted clean cannot be deprived of their vote. Those who did not participate cannot be denied their votes, simply because 300 cheated. That's a principle in election law.
Otherwise, if there's a claim of massive cheating, but the massive cheating will not overcome the lead, then that's not a...there's no...the law says that you cannot annul [the] elections.

So that's been going on and on. I'm not saying that I condone the cheating, but the cheating was done by both sides, and the figures are there to say. Unfortunately, this is not...the lawyer of both Noli de Castro and the President are one and the same. So, well, it doesn't want to emphasize the fact that Loren and they've got the same number of votes. So how can they complain, when they, that's a fact, it's theirs.

But that is lost in all of this, it’s lost in all of this exchange of views and the, since anyway I was told that this will be for posterity, OK, so I tell him, because then, it's good that it's recorded because I don't usually say these things but it's all right, but that's the point.

Lynette Luna: Having said that, senator, do you believe then that this government that we have right now is a legitimate government?

Joker Arroyo: Oh, yes. It's legitimate for one simple reason; they keep on harking on harking on the 2001 election. All right. But Supreme Court has declared it already. At some point, we must also rely on our established institutions.

Alright, so this one, it is legitimate, but I cannot say that I will condone or agree on the cheating because cheating is cheating and evil no matter what.

But supposing we say now that it's illegitimate, who runs the country? I asked the question. If someone can tell me, who will run the country because this is an illegitimate government, what does the opposition say?

Because GMA [Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo] cheated; ergo, they take their place. Who appointed them? Did the people say that they've won? So who will among the opposition, I mean these are the philosophical, intellectual arguments that must be pointed out.

So GMA cheated, assuming--let's concede that, that she cheated. Who will run the country? The rightful one will be Noli de Castro because under the Constitution, he is the one. But the opposition do not want to accept him. So who will run, someone anointed by the opposition? Who anointed them to anoint the...who will run the country? No one. So that's the, this is not to say that I've been a clean bill of help to the administration. No, no, no, what I'm saying is that at the moment, unless a good answer is given, then we just have to accept this government.

Lynette Luna: One of the points being raised by against you, senator, is when you were a chairman of Senate blue ribbon committee, there were some issues that you did not, that you actually sat on...

Joker Arroyo: If they say it, then I will answer it.

Lynette Luna: Well, among them would be Jose Pidal?

Joker Arroyo: Ah, very good, very good. Jose Pidal, and Jose Velarde, let's state them together. In Jose Velarde, I played a principal role in the Jose Velarde because I was the head prosecutor, where I demanded that the second envelope to be opened. In the Jose Pidal, I was chairman of the blue ribbon committee that refused and ruled that the Jose Pidal account cannot be opened. So the question is, why the inconsistencies? There is no inconsistency at all.

Both the Jose Velarde and the Jose Pidal accounts are, were both fictitious, but they were legal. Because they were opened and closed during the period or during the time that fictitious account were allowed. So that’s settled.

The Jose Velarde account is almost--transactions total on almost P3.2 billion--was the subject in the Senate impeachment. The question was whether that should be opened or not. I insisted that it should be opened. The reason for that is this, that the law is very clear. Bank accounts cannot be opened. No way, it can be opened. That is the essence of the Bank Secrecy Law, which has been with us for over a hundred years, and that is sacred doctrine.

Otherwise, no banks will exist if you do not guard the secrecy of a depositor's deposit. The only exception is if it is the subject in an impeachment. So because of that, the issue was whether it should be opened or not. I insisted that it should be opened. I lost in that vote by a single, 11-10, or whatever. But that also led to EDSA, so let’s forget that.

Comes now the Jose Pidal. Why did I refuse? Simple, because under the law, you can only open the bank account if it is impeachment. Is there no more remedy? There is. How? You go to court and ask the court that it be opened. In other words, the Senate cannot open it, but the court can order it opened. So there's a process.

So what did the opposition do? I told them, you go to court. But they did not because they wanted to use it for propaganda. So, it was a matter of going to court. getting a court order, and we will obey.

And if I order the opening, I go to jail because the law is very clear. Whomsoever orders the opening of an account of a bank, will be guilty of the penal provisions under bank secrecy law. That's why all the banks refused, if you will remember that all the banks refused. They said your law that you're enacted says that we cannot open our bank accounts. And if we do, without a court order, we go to jail. We don't want to go to jail. That's the answer.

Now, it has been be-clouded and the good thing you asked that. I won't duck any issue here, but the problem with the opposition if they didn't want to go to court because they wanted it hanging. And they succeeded in making that an issue up to this moment.

But you asked it so I answered it. That's it. If they can answer it up to now, why did they not go to court? And the law is very clear--bank accounts cannot be opened except in impeachment cases--that's Jose Velarde.

But bank accounts can be opened by order of the court. All right. So if they applied with the court, which was simple--they go to a friendly judge and get an order--then I have no choice but to open it. But for me as the chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, saying that I open it, I go to jail. I'm not going to jail for the opposition.

These are the little things that...so you ask me, how could I go on with the opposition? Well, there's the intellectual dishonesty in all of these things.

Lynette Luna: For my last question, senator, if elected, how will you define your term this time? You have been known as a graft buster.

Joker Arroyo: I wouldn't know, because I rely on my past record rather the future record. You know, a legislator cannot have a platform, because he has to legislate. All I can say is that this country can live without a Congress, because we have so many laws--it’s not being implemented eh. And that's the problem that we have.

So, things like that I don't know you asked me about what will be my role, I don't know.

Perhaps I'll just continue with that I do, but I would like a publication of the voting record of each senator on various issues, you know, so that they'll know. Like the Anti-Money Laundering Law, the very vocal senators who were asking for the opening of the Jose Pidal account, supported my amendment that the bank secrecy law should still remain.

Because the law says it couldn't be opened, I opposed that. And those who are shouting loud about all of these, you know, they voted for it. That's why the banks said, you just passed the Anti-Money Laundering Law which prohibits the opening of bank accounts without a court order; why are you doing, why are you telling us now to violate the very law that you pass three months ago?

That's how it is. I think you should ask these questions so that we get intelligent answers from people running for an office. It’s not just trying to tell the people this and that, this and that, they must also be intellectually honest on certain issues which matter. Otherwise, who are we? We are just like peddlers there in the streets. So these are things that, so to the question of what I'll do, I don't know. I...

But the performance, as blue ribbon committee chairman, I have fought against private quarrels being ventilated in Senate committees. You’ll see a senator there they'll deliver a privilege speech with has nothing to do with public interest, but somebody told him, you deliver a speech. Then it would be referred to a committee so the committee will investigate it.
It has no public purpose, it has no nothing but it creates – it’s actually a blackmail against whoever is that subject of investigation. Those things perhaps, perhaps I will work on that, to limit that.

So to a certain extent, [EO] 464 which I fought, had some basis. Because there were already investigations being conducted outside of the public purpose.

There were already private quarrels which were being litigated through the, through the various committees in the Senate. I mean, that is not a forum for private quarrels. That should be in the courts, that should be in the courts.

Lynette Luna: Thank you very much, senator.

Joker Arroyo: You are most welcome.

Read part 2,3,4

Copyright 2010 INQUIRER.net and content partners. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.