Many are wondering whether Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio is living up to his role as justice or in fact brokering for the interest of the US by tagging as traitors those who are against the Aquino administration’s unilateral decision to bring our dispute with China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Obviously, his statement was meant to pre-empt President Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte of his prerogative to defuse the heightening tension brought about by the Aquino administration’s decision to unilaterally file a case against China, which most political analysts consider a lose-lose situation for the Philippines.
Justice Carpio was rather lackluster in calling those who favor the withdrawal of our case as traitors. There is no mistake that Carpio is referring to the Duterte administration because he alone, through his appointed Secretary of Foreign Affairs or anybody assigned by him, can withdraw the case. Maybe it is embarrassing to those who hatched the idea, but definitely those who might decide to drop the silly idea of the Aquino administration cannot be called traitors or much more could be accused of treason. To withdraw the case can only be interpreted as a shift in our approach to the problem.
Neither can that mean we are abandoning our claim. There is nothing wrong if the Duterte administration decides to favor direct negotiations. It must be pointed out that China has never given up its offer to negotiate. Rather, we failed to get the cue that China does not want an outsider or a non-party to meddle in the negotiation. Should the Duterte administration choose to directly negotiate, it is understood that the Philippines has to withdraw the case before the two can proceed to talk.
Carpio must bear in mind that the decision to bring our dispute with China over those islands in the South China Sea is a mere policy hatched by the warmongering Aquino administration. The Duterte administration has the right to choose which policy to adopt, having in mind the same objective of wanting to resolve the dispute. It cannot be pre-empted or prevented from enunciating a new approach under the veiled threat of accusing them as traitors.
To be called a traitor or to be accused of treason requires more than an act of disagreement with the government. There has to be a war between China and the Philippines with those Filipinos openly siding with the enemy. At the very least, their disagreement is in defiance of the Constitution. In this case, there is no war that exists between the two countries—or our dispute with China is in defense of our territorial integrity that is defined in the Constitution. Those accused of treason openly sided with the enemy similar to members of the Makapili or Kalibapi organizations like PNoy’s grandfather, Benigno Aquino, Sr., who openly sided with Japanese during the war.
It is even farfetched for Justice Carpio to assume that President Duterte could be impeached for ordering a direct negotiation. One has to clearly point out that the President violated a specific provision of the Constitution. Our dispute with China in the South China Sea falls under the category of a territorial claim that is not even mentioned in the Constitution. If there is anybody guilty of violating the Constitution for abandoning our territory, it is none other than Cory Aquino. What saved the day for her was when she scrapped the Constitution that referred to Sabah as part of our territory “by historic right and legal title.”
Although there are decrees where we have laid our claim over some areas in the China South Sea like the decree proclaiming Kalayaan islands as a Municipality and the Scarborough Shoal or the Panatag Reef as part of our territory, it being within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone delineated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, the Aquino administration forgot that Unclos only pertains to the right of the adjacent state to exploit the mineral resources found within the zone. It does not vest sovereignty to the adjacent state in the basis that it is within the 200-mile limit.
What is clear is that B.S Aquino should have been impeached had he not mastered the art of appointing political sycophants as justices to the Supreme Court and in fattening his corrupt confederates in Congress by doling out huge pork barrel to secure the return of the US military bases in this country. The signing of Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement allowing the US to have at least six military bases here was clearly in violation Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Edca is a glaring example how the Aquino government bowed to US pressure to give justification to the US navy to conduct regular patrol in the South China Sea in the guise of securing the country’s against external aggression.
One must take note that the return of the US military bases in the Philippines, all strategically facing the South China Sea, completed the infrastructure to contain China. From there, we could draw the conclusion that the presence of the US military bases in the country was meant to give teeth to the US pivot-to-Asia policy that hastened instead to coagulate Sino-Russian strategic partnership in the Asia-Pacific rim as counterweight to the increasing US and Japanese military presence in the South China Sea. Stated differently, the US’ obligation to defend the Philippines under the treaty is only incidental to the objective of militarily encircling China.
The Aquino government simply did not have the tact to decipher that when China kept open the suggestion for direct negotiations, it failed to comprehend that China would not negotiate with us without offering something in return. The likes of President Aquino, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario and Justice Antonio Carpio always assume that China is big and powerful, and it is out to bully this country. Based on that assumption, they succeeded in precluding public opinion that nothing positive will come out by engaging in a direct negotiation with China.
Every diplomat knows that when one party offers to negotiate, there has to be a starting point, and that the negotiation is always concluded on a quid pro quo basis of give and take. If countries refuse to call it a compromise because it might involve their sovereignty, they use other terms. This is in line to the proposal of the late Deng Xiaoping of settling the problem by setting aside the issue of sovereignty. If the other party has nothing to offer, then we could well surmise that China is acting in bad faith. Only then could we assume that the other party is demanding an unconditional surrender, and this is not the case why China wants direct negotiations.
rpkapunan@gmail.com