President Duterte upheld Philippine sovereignty when he desisted from concluding with China a joint exploration agreement in the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea.
He explained that he has no power to enter into such joint agreement without a congressional authorization, which the Congress in the first place, has no right to grant since any authorization will violate the Constitution and derogate Philippine sovereignty.
The President’s decision was a recognition of Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio’s opinion that if the President would ink such deal, he would commit a culpable violation of the Constitution which is an impeachable offense.
Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution on national economy and patrimony that provides that “The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth and its archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.”
The President’s desistance was a rejection of the call for a similar joint exploration from former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, now Representative of the 2nd District of Pampanga, and her allies.
It will be recalled that then President Arroyo’s administration signed in 2005 a joint exploration deal between the Philippines, China and Vietnam called the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) on islands located within the Philippines’ 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which was not renewed when it expired in 2008 because of opposition that it transgressed Philippine sovereignty.
The President’s refusal to forge a joint exploration deal was the closest to any invocation of the United Nation arbitrary decision recognizing Philippine sovereignty in most of the disputed islands and waters in the West Philippine Sea.
This is again President Duterte’s usual hyperbole. He does not mean it. The country cannot afford to completely sever ties with traditional economic and security allies like the US. He is just catering to the goodwill of his Chinese hosts. Diplomacy is “polygamy”. A country is “married” to multiple allies.
Manila might have been spared the powerful storm Lawin’s wrath but not the inordinate ferocity of the Manila Police District as it unconscionably attacked the protesters in front of the US embassy yesterday to violently disperse them.
The rallyists who were asserting national self-determination and sovereignty were mostly indigenous peoples. They were demanding the pull out of US forces from the Philippines particularly from their ancestral lands.
The creeping culture of violence emanating from government’s war on drugs that has spawned unabated summary killings has been dramatized by the sudden violent dispersal that injured some 50 protesters.
The brute force unleashed by the Manila Police District is condemnable as it is an abominable assault on the right of the people to peaceful assembly which is guaranteed by the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Philippines is a State Party.
The police attack on the protesters proves that the uniformed men and women have no respect for human rights and civil liberties. This sends a chilling effect as it can continue to escalate as the police are emboldened by the incessant exhortation of President Duterte to the members of the PNP to kill perceived lawbreakers when necessary.
The use of force and violence to suppress political dissent is anathema to democracy. Democracy is sustained by differing even conflicting views and opinions that are ideally resolved by consensus and never by force and violence.
A prompt and impartial investigation of the incident by an independent body is imperative.
The supermajority in the House of Representatives does not need a re-energized “railroad” to inordinately fast track the approval of bills and resolutions by the Plenary.
It must afford essential and indispensable debates and discussions on legislative measures before summoning its numerical ascendancy for the approval of measures.
The lightning speed by which the House approved the report of the Committee on Justice on the narcotics trade in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), with irrelevant expositions and findings on Sen. Leila de Lima’s alleged acceptance of drug money for her senatorial bid, was a thunderbolt which struck many Members of the House.
The alacrity in the approval of the report is documented by the following facts:
While the Committee on Justice took four hearing days totaling 47 hours to finish its investigation as mentioned in its Committee Report No. 14 and the Committee on Rules two hours to deliberate and approve the said Committee Report as admitted by the Acting Majority Leader for the day, it took the Plenary barely one solitary minute to approve Committee Report No. 14 yesterday, 19 October 2016.
Committee Report No. 14 was submitted to the Committee on Rules on 18 October 2016 and the Rules Committee deliberated on said Report and approved the same at about mid-afternoon on 19 October 2016 or immediately on the following day.
Copies of the report, which were circulated to the Members of the House at past 4:00 PM on 19 October 2016, were incomplete because the voluminous annexes attached to the report were not included. Moreover, no report singed by the majority of the Members of the Committee on Justice was presented.
No additional Calendar of Business for the Day was circulated informing the Members that plenary action on the report was set for the day. Some copies of the requisite calendar were selectively distributed belatedly after the report was approved. This errant procedure is not denied by Deputy Majority Leaders for the day.
Without giving adequate time for Members to peruse the report, the then Acting Majority Leader at 6:10 PM moved for the approval of the report and the Presiding Officer, as if on cue, banged the gavel and announced the approval of the report without any objections.
Before the start of the session on 19 October 2016, Rep. Edcel Lagman reserved with the Majority Leaders for the day his right to interpellate or ask questions on said report in the event that it would be taken up in the Plenary.
Rep. Lagman waited to be recognized for his interpellation or questions but his expressed reservation was disregarded as the report was approved without any debate or discussion in the Plenary.
The deliberative character inherent in legislative assemblies was abandoned in favor of a railroaded approval.
When Sec. 17 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation provides that “Upon inclusion of the report in the Calendar of Business, the Plenary may approve or adopt, disapprove or reject, in whole or in part, the report and its recommendation(s) or commit it to the archives”, it presupposes that necessary debates and discussion of the report in the Plenary will be held, unless no one had reserved the right to interpellate or ask questions on the report.
The report was precipitately and prematurely approved by the Plenary in violation of the second paragraph of Section 16 of the rules on legislative investigation which provides: “The report, together with any concurring and dissenting opinion, shall be filed with the Secretary General who shall include the same in the Order of Business within three (3) days from receipt thereof.” Only one (1) day transpired after the submission of the subject report to the Bills and Index Division and the Committee on Rules.
