Overwhelming approval would be the most probable result of a public opinion survey on the handling by the irrepressible Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago of last week?s hearing on reports of alleged corruption in the World Bank-funded public works project in the Philippines.

Most people would have to agree with and approve Santiago?s outburst against the seeming indifference by government officials on allegations of corruption in public works projects. People probably wish that they could also publicly lambaste these officials.

Santiago clearly gave vent to people?s frustration on government corruption.

Of course one of the reasons for the strong public support for Santiago?s anti-corruption advocacy is public anger which has been stoked by the kid?s glove treatment of blacklisted contractors by their fellow contractors sitting in the House of Representatives.

The House hearing on the same issue heard by Santiago?s Senate committee on economic affairs was chaired by Pampanga Rep. Aurelio Gonzales, the vice chairman of the House committee on public works who is in the construction business.

While Santiago made a strong denunciation of influential people who are stonewalling the Senate inquiry, the Pampanga contractor-congressman on the other hand said that it?s the World Bank which should be sanctioned and not the blacklisted contractors.

While we agree that there should be a scrutiny of the World Bank investigation and how it arrived at its conclusions, clearing the blacklisted contractors outright without looking at the report is patently wrong.

The public would certainly side with Santiago in her desire to get to the bottom of the issue of the WB blacklisting of three big-time Philippine contractors.

Aside from her verbal assault against coddlers of corrupt public works contractors, the feisty Santiago also made another important point when she insisted that the allegations made by Senator Panfilo Lacson should be supported by the testimony of at least one witness.

Lacson had linked First Gentleman Mike Arroyo to one of the WB blacklisted contractor. Lacson also said that one of the contractors under investigation delivered P70-million cash to the LTA building in Makati where the First Gentleman holds office.

Santiago made it clear that she would not allow her committee?s investigations to be used for scurrilous attacks against the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo or other personalities unless a witness can be produced to back up the accusations.

She surprised Lacson and the other senators when she announced the termination of the hearing. She said that she was more than willing to reopen the investigation if Lacson produces at least one credible witness to testify on the allegations about the P70-million bribe to the First Gentleman.

Santiago made two things clear in that hearing. One, she would not allow anybody to treat her committee?s investigation lightly. Two, she would not allow even fellow senators to make unsupported accusations in investigation by her committee. This should be the standard in all Senate investigations.

Santiago?s ?performance? in last week?s hearing should explain why even people who do not like her feistiness admire her.

***

One of the principal figures in the controversy involving Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Louis ?Barok? Biraogo, sent us a letter to give his side on some points we raised in our column last Friday.

In the interest of fair play, his letter is printed below:

?Mr. Alvin Capino?s column of Jan. 30 put me in a bad light for claiming that I have become familiar with Supreme Court procedures because I allegedly figured in a case in which he claimed I ?forcibly entered a beachfront property in Davao to put up Habagat Grill??

?I bought the rights to one of these settlers in good faith and put up the Habagat Grill and Restaurant which I operated and owned along with other people, including my siblings.

?I never forcibly entered the said beachfront property because I did not have to. The Consunji group is not in control of the place as it is a popular recreational area in Davao City. Even if we go there now, we could see that just anybody could enter because it is a public area.

?To emphasize, there are more than fifty [50] establishments there, similar to the one I put up. We won in the lower courts, if my memory serves me right, although I did not actually know what happened afterwards until now because we sold the business sometime in 2003 or 2004 before the Supreme Court decided on the case.

?Mr. Capino also assumed that I filed the case seeking to disqualify Mrs. Limkaichong as a member of congress for being an alien at the behest of my fraternal brother, former congressman Jacinto Paras.

?I was also made to appear like a Johnny-come-lately to the case when Mr. Capino claimed that I came into the limelight only a few weeks ago...

?The truth is that I filed the case in 2007 before the Supreme Court as a taxpayer who did not want public funds to be misused by an alien, a Chinese national in Mrs. Limkaichong. Thus, I did not come out of the woodwork to just denounce Puno.

?Likewise, my fraternal brod, former congressman Jacinto Paras, had no need for me to file a case against Limkaichong on his or his wife?s behalf. This because even before I filed my case before the SC, Mrs. Olivia Paras had already sought Limkaichong?s disqualification by the Comelec and she (Mrs. Paras) won.

?There should be no malice whatsoever on the aspect of me and former congressman Paras being involved in the consolidated cases [four in all] involving Mrs. Limkaichong. To me, the impropriety was the failure of Chief Justice Puno to inhibit himself from the Limkaichong case the moment his fraternal brod, Atty. Pacifico Agabin, represented Limkaichong during oral arguments.

?The legal aspects raised by Mr. Capino had been thoroughly discussed already, but let me sum up the points that debunk most of his contention.

?No less than former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban declared as erroneous the claim of both Puno and the SC en banc that the Limkaichong decision cannot be promulgated because it lacked doctrinal value

?The Dec.10, 2008 SC resolution had taken liberty on the real facts, including that on July 15, 2008 there could not already have been a signed decision [but only a unanimous verbal agreement with the Limkaichong decision penned by Justice Ruben Reyes) with which Puno allegedly counted nine justices concurring only with the ?results? of the decision

?All 15 SC Justices, including Puno, approved the Reyes ponencia during the July 15, 2008 deliberation. Fourteen justices later on signed their concurrence on the ponencia, thus Chief Justice Puno is mainly to blame for its non-promulgation due to the ?non-doctrinal? technicality he had raised, but which had been proven to be without basis under the Constitution and our laws.

?To sum it up, let me point out that another voters? group had filed a case to disqualify Mrs. Limkaichong, thereby underscoring the gravity of the transgression felt by the people of Negros Oriental when an alien came to represent us in Congress.

?I take exception to a seeming effort to put political color and malice to this cause I have been championing for two years now. I appeal to Mr. Capino to please publish this rejoinder to his column in adherence to the tenets of journalism of getting all sides of a story.?

***

The principal points of my column last Friday, just to reiterate, are:

1. The decision not to promulgate is the decision of the Supreme Court en banc and not the Chief Justice alone.

2. An unpromulgated decision does not count for anything even if all the justices have signed the draft. Until it is promulgated any of the justices can change position.

3. There is a constitutional prohibition for any decision to promulgate a decision if the majority of the justices of the Supreme Court did not explain why they are ?concurring in the results only?.