Vietnam has requested China to withdraw its weapons from disputed territory in the South China Sea, while security experts have urged the Philippine government to upgrade the country’s defenses in the Spratly archipelago in response to China’s militarization of the strategic waterway.

“Vietnam requests that China, as a large country, show its responsibility in maintaining peace and stability in the East Sea, do not carry out militarization activities, withdraw military equipment illegally installed on features under Vietnam’s sovereignty,” international news agencies on Wednesday quoted Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson Le Thi Thu Hang as saying in a statement on Tuesday, using the Vietnamese name for the South China Sea.

The statement came after US news network CNBC reported on May 2 that China had installed antiship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on three Philippine-claimed reefs in the Spratly archipelago that it had seized and transformed into artificial islands then developed into military outposts—Kagitingan (international name: Fiery Cross), Zamora (Subi) and Panganiban (Mischief).

“Vietnam is extremely concerned about the information [as reported] and reaffirms that all militarization activities, including the installation of missiles on Spratly islands, is a serious violation of Vietnam’s sovereignty,” Hang said.

China has earlier deployed similar weapons on Woody Island, the biggest feature in the Paracels archipelago farther to the north that Vietnam considers part of its territory.

No word yet from PH

While Vietnam has protested China’s missile deployment in the disputed waterway, the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte has yet to say what it intends to do about the installation of high-tech weapons on Philippine territory.

Several lawmakers have urged the Duterte administration to protest the missile deployment, but presidential spokesperson Harry Roque has said the government has yet to verify the information because it does not have the technology to do so.

The government, however, is acquiring equipment that will enable it to verify the missile deployments, Roque told reporters on Tuesday.

China has neither confirmed nor denied the installation of weapons on the three Philippine reefs.

The Philippines’ defense treaty ally, the United States, warned that China would face “consequences” over its militarization of the strategic waterway.

But Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said “China’s peaceful construction in the Spratly archipelago, including the deployment of necessary national defense facilities, is aimed at protecting China’s sovereignty and security.”

Naval battles

Vietnam and China have fought naval battles over their conflicting claims in the South China Sea, while the Philippines has taken—and beaten—China to the UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to resolve their own maritime dispute.

But instead of asserting the Philippines’ legal victory, the President, who came to power shortly before the tribunal handed down the decision in July 2016, mended fences with China and wooed the economic giant for aid, loans and investments.

China pledged to give the President billions of dollars in investment and aid. Beijing then proceeded to develop its military outposts on Philippine territory, which was discovered with the Inquirer’s publication of surveillance photos in February and April showing nearly finished bases with airstrips, at least one with two military transport planes on the tarmac.

Alarmed at the Duterte administration’s lack of initiative, lawmakers have called for legislative inquiries into China’s actions in the South China Sea.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson on Wednesday called for a meeting of the National Security Council to tackle China’s deployment of missiles on Philippine territory.

“If up to now the government still has not confirmed the presence of a foreign country’s missiles [on three] of our islands, we may have a serious national security problem. Convening the National Security Council is the least that we should do, given the situation,” Lacson said in a statement.

‘Be not timid’

Security experts also urged the administration to upgrade the country’s outposts in the Spratlys, after the Inquirer reported that the Philippines has been left behind by its rivals in development of their claims in the South China Sea.

“It is not fair to our [troops at] hardship posts in [the Spratlys] that the government is hardly upgrading our facilities there, yielding to China’s objections,” former National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said on Wednesday.

The Philippines has stopped developing its outposts in the Spratlys to keep a 2002 claimants’ agreement  to maintain the status quo in the South China Sea.

But Golez said the government was “overdoing” its “act not to antagonize China by not reinforcing” the country’s defenses in the Spratlys.

Golez cited Vietnam’s development of its defenses in the South China Sea, saying Hanoi has demonstrated that “a good defense capability buildup is not incompatible with a vibrant economy.”

Despite past violence in their maritime dispute, Vietnam and China maintain economic ties, though Hanoi continues to oppose Beijing’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea, Golez said.

“The message: Be not timid in facing China,” he said.

‘For greater survivability’

Defense analyst Jose Antonio Custodio said the Philippines’ defenses in the Spratlys must be improved “to allow for greater survivability” in case of “any eventuality such as hostile incidents or even natural calamities.”

“Now, given that China has upped the ante by deploying missiles [on Philippine territory in the Spratlys], it becomes imperative to increase our defenses,” Custodio said.

Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, said upgrading the Philippines’ outposts in the Spratlys could serve a “symbolic purpose.”

“[It’s] demonstrating resolve even in the face of China’s intimidation. To do nothing would be to signal that we concede the South China Sea to China,” Batongbacal said. —With reports from Leila B. Salaverria and the wires



Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/166811/hanoi-beijing-pull-missiles#ixzz5FBLN9iQX 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

At least 46 unfinished housing projects for survivors of Supertyphoon “Yolanda” (international name: Haiyan) are facing cancellation due to various defects, the National Housing Authority (NHA) said on Wednesday.

These projects comprise the bulk of 53 contracts which the NHA has sought to cancel, NHA spokesperson Elsie Trinidad said.

“All these 46 [projects] remain unfinished due to [problems in] deployment of resources such as manpower and supplies. Others have incurred negative slippage of more than 15 percent,” she said.

Under the government procurement law, no project should incur a delay of more than the 15-percent slippage rate.

‘Legal action’

Marcelino Escalada Jr., NHA general manager, announced on Tuesday that he cancelled 20 housing contracts for various defects, and issued notices of termination to 33 other projects across the country.

“We are not only investigating the developers; we are also looking … if there are NHA employees who are also involved [in the irregularity]. If it turns out that they are, then we will also be filing the necessary legal actions,” said lawyer John Christopher Mahamud, Escalada’s chief of staff.

Mahamud said the NHA reactivated a fact-finding committee to look into the liability of contractors, as well as NHA personnel.

He said contractors for the 33 other projects were issued notices requiring them to explain the causes of delay, and justify why their projects should not be cancelled.

“We are working [to have] these contractors blacklisted,” Mahamud said, adding that the NHA was also aware that many contractors escaped liability by hiding under a different company name, or engaging in joint ventures.

The government embarked on a massive rehabilitation work for survivors of Yolanda, after it hit the Philippines in November 2013 and rendered homeless thousands of families in the Visayas.

Project sites

NHA records showed the government was trying to construct houses in 119 project sites spread across the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Cebu, Leyte, Easter Samar, Samar, Biliran and Palawan, and Tacloban City.

Of the 205,128 units that the NHA had targeted to build, only 92,088 had been completed. However, only 59,420 units had been occupied, according to records from the housing agency.



Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/988995/46-yolanda-projects-defective-says-nha#ixzz5FBKtlfjU 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

LAST year, I wrote an article about the President’s firing of the perceived corrupt and incompetent members of his official family. The manner of these high-profile dismissals, I declared then, could be the core hypothesis of DU30’s emerging “whiff of corruption” doctrine. He stated that he would “…not tolerate any corruption in his administration and he will dismiss from office any of his men (and women) who are tainted even by a ‘whiff of corruption’; and he is ready to sack any public officials even on a basis of false allegations of corruption.” (Inquirer.net, March 30, 2017)

This met with mixed reviews, but mostly positive ones, as the citizenry for the first time was being unusually initiated into the world of a foul-mouthed, no-nonsense president who will not tolerate deviant behavior in his administration – more so among his intimate circle of cabinet alter egos. Many suspended judgment on the acts of the President, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

DU30 has to date sacked a couple of hundred bureaucrats, majority of whose names were not made public by him, “to protect their families.” But we too are in the dark as to whether any formal investigations were conducted. They were simply ‘let-go’ from their posts.

I took exception to this presidential directive and I said then: “…the targets of these charges were not given ample time to prepare a reasonable defense; and they were not allowed to confront their accusers. But insidiously, the dismissals were done publicly putting to shame these alleged offenders without a measure of a prior face-saving mechanism. This public humiliation was a deliberate act by a President out to send a strong message to the bureaucracy, that the consequences of even a ‘whiff of corruption’ are immediate, deadly and total.” (The Manila Times, “Duterte Doctrine,” April 27, 2017)

I am revisiting my article as this is timely in light of a similar controversy just this month: the perceived anomaly involving Tourism Secretary Wanda Teo concerning the award of a P60 million contract to family members. The details will not be discussed here but only the general circumstances against the backdrop of the Duterte Doctrine. To all intents and purposes, Secretary Teo should have been summarily dismissed if the President were to be faithful to his actions in the past. On the other hand, if she were sensitive to the president’s quandary, or even possessing a semblance of delicadeza, she should spare the president embarrassment by resigning.

So, Mr. President, where is your vaunted political will? And will you execute your doctrine? If we still operate under a democratic system, you are not allowed to be arbitrary in your decisions.

But I am digressing. I am against both courses of action. I was against the Duterte Doctrine when it was applied against the erstwhile heads of the DILG and NIA. I am now also against dismissing Secretary Teo outright based on the same fallacious doctrine. As I wrote then, and I quote, “…the President must be subject to the minimum of fairness and the etiquette of dismissal, for no apparent reason than that the process is widely regarded as civilized behavior. But more importantly, there is a greater overarching principle that covers the conduct of the mighty, the powerful and the humble – the rule of law.

“In a democracy under which we claim we practice, prudent laws are its foundation and the glue that bind a civilized society. It is imperative that the laws laid down by government must be followed by all its citizens. The simplicity of the concept of the rule of law is oftentimes made complicated by those authorized to uphold it… allegations of transgressions (must) be investigated in a transparent manner by structures legitimately sanctioned. And the President by virtue of his ascendancy granted by the Constitution also has the primary guardianship of that Constitution conferred on him. He must therefore uphold its principles.

“From another standpoint, nations with weak leaders breed weak laws and will find themselves in a quagmire of corruption and lawlessness. Nations with prudent laws but governed by leaders void of political will to implement such laws may only cripple the primacy of the rule of law. But strong leaders with political will must understand that all are equal under the dominance of The Rule of Law; none above. President Rodrigo Duterte must aspire to be one of the latter.”

It is a well-known fact that the Deegong has personal ties with Secretary Teo’s family whose pro-Duterte brothers are well-entrenched in mass media with their own formidable public following. But this bond with the President must transcend the personal and familiar as the more important covenant with the citizenry has ascendancy.

But the Wanda Teo affair is just one of those that has of late been eroding this delicate pact with the people through DU30’s actuations.

Another disturbing episode is the case of Pompee la Viña’s dismissal as SSS commissioner for corruption. “Presidential spokesman Harry Roque said the termination of La Viña was proof Duterte would not tolerate even just ‘one whiff of corruption’.” (Pia Ranada, Rappler, April 25, 2018)

As of last week, La Viña had received a new presidential appointment promoting him to the position of undersecretary at the DoT. It is likewise true that Usec La Viña was an original close comrade of candidate DU30.

Both Teo and La Viña, once appointed to their positions, were honored by DU30 with prerogatives, prestige and power, adding their own to it, to enable the president and them to do their task well. The sum of all these is the vaunted political capital of the president with a sustainability dependent largely on a fickle citizenry.

Secretary Teo must be investigated fairly and given her day in court. Undersecretary La Viña, who has already been dismissed from SSS, should not be allowed to assume his new position until he is first cleared of prior accusations.

The President’s covenant with the people is at best fragile and the wrong choice between personal ties and public good could have a deadly impact on the majesty of the office of the presidency and more importantly, the rule of law.

China has assured the Philippines that it will come to its aid in the event of external threats, according to President Rodrigo Duterte.

“China said, ‘We will protect you. We will not allow the Philippines to be destroyed. We are just here and you can call for our help anytime,’” the President said in a speech in Davao City on Friday.

He criticized the United States, saying it would not protect the Philippines because it was afraid of war.

Help from China, Russia

The Philippines and the United States are defense treaty allies, but the President is distancing the Philippines from the United States because of US expressions of concern over the thousands of killings in his brutal war on drugs.

The President recalled how he decided to seek help from China and Russia after some American senators filed a bill that would block the sale of assault rifles to the Philippine National Police, as these could be used against Filipinos.

He thanked China and Russia for giving firearms to the Philippines without asking for anything in return.

“So to this day, China and Russia has not asked me for a single piece of paper or pencil in return. And I told them that I’m not ready to enter into military alliances because we have this pact with the US. If I have a treaty with them, I cannot enter into other treaties,” he said.

The President expressed doubt that the United States would come to the Philippines’ aid in the event of an external threat.

“If America helps us, which I doubt, they have missiles. But foot soldiers? America is allergic to that. They have lost so many wars … She’s not going to protect us,” he said.

The President lauded China and Russia for promising that they would be there for the Philippines should the need arise.

US commitment

“When you talk to China or Russia, they keep their word, ‘We will be there.’ This America, this Italy … They are afraid to die,” he added.

US Ambassador to the Philippines Sung Kim renewed the US commitment to its alliance with the Philippines on Thursday following reports that China had landed military planes on Panganiban Reef and deployed antiship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on that reef, and Kagitingan and Zamora reefs—all Philippine-claimed features in the Spratly archipelago.

Kim vowed the United States would do “whatever we can” to protect the freedoms of navigation, overflight and commerce in the South China Sea, nearly all of which is claimed by China, including waters close to the shores of its rivals for territory in the strategic waterway—the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan.

The UN-backed Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, ruling in 2016 on a challenge brought by the Philippines, declared China’s sweeping claim invalid and pronounced it in violation of the Philippines’ sovereign rights to fish and explore for resources in the West Philippine Sea, waters within the country’s 370-kilometer exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea.

China ignored the ruling and proceeded to develop military outposts on Philippine reefs in the Spratly archipelago.



Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/166651/duterte-china-promised-protect-ph#ixzz5EnVdlxDL 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

(Editor’s Note: The author is the chair of ADR Institute. He is a former secretary of foreign affairs and ambassador of the Philippines to the United States.)

The discovery of China’s deployment of missiles on three Philippine reefs in the Spratly archipelago is deeply concerning but not the least bit surprising.

If one has dealt with China, of certainty is the stark inconsistency between what is being declared and what is actually happening on the ground.

Regardless of Beijing’s commitment not to militarize the South China Sea, its methodical upgrading of military aspects on the artificial islands it has built on disputed reefs in the strategic waterway will surely and progressively continue.

In other words, the salami slicing proceeds as planned.

Threatening rivals

Notwithstanding the fact that the July 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in favor of the Philippines is now an integral part of international law, China will persist in flexing its muscles to threaten those who challenge its claim of sovereignty over nearly the entire South China Sea.

Former President Benigno Aquino III ensured that we had undertaken all possible means—both bilateral and multilateral—to achieve a political and diplomatic solution to no avail.

As a last resort, we pursued a legal track, which resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Filipino people.

When the arbitral outcome was announced during the beginning of President Duterte’s term, the whole world awaited what the Philippines could and would do.

Our new government unfortunately decided to manifest the softest diplomacy possible toward China by offering to shelve any discussions on the The Hague tribunal’s ruling.

Beijing’s calculated response was to advance as planned in further militarizing the artificial islands.

Foreign policy strategy

Since diplomacy is about reciprocity, with such a response, should there not be urgency in revisiting our foreign policy strategy?

To begin with, should we be accepting China’s unlawful expansion agenda as a fait accompli that renders us helpless?

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), what China has done and is continuing to do in the South China Sea is unlawful.

We should therefore start from there, and not end there. Ergo, we should start by not allowing ourselves to be bullied into a position of acquiescence.

Other options

We should also not allow ourselves to be directly threatened with war as the Chinese president had allegedly done with our President. The threat of the use of force is an outright violation of the UN Charter.

On the deployment of missiles, should we not immediately issue a note of protest in order to protect our legal position?

A host of other options is available to us with regard to the South China Sea.

Should we differentiate between the importance of “promised” benefits vs promoting national security?

Should we be showing greater appreciation for the support of traditional partners hoping that they can be galvanized multilaterally to convince China to adhere to what is lawful?

Should we be consulting regularly with acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio to benefit from his wisdom, expertise and sound judgment on the South China Sea challenges?

Should we be studying recommendations on converting reclaimed islands into marine parks?

Should we be working with the UN General Assembly on how it can help in consolidating its members to promote international law, specifically Unclos?

Code of conduct

Should we be proactive in the development of the proposed code of conduct in the South China Sea, given that China will only agree to conclude such a code with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations when its expansion agenda will have been completed?

Further on the code of conduct, should we be mindful as well that China will use the code, if we allow them, to protect and preserve their unlawful gains in the South China Sea?

Should we conduct a national security summit to discuss these and other options to preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Philippine republic?

Moreover, when will we consider further tasking the Department of Foreign Affairs officials, who are the best and the brightest in the government, to formulate other doable options?

Finally, we are a sovereign nation with a proud heritage of patriotism, of courage and of standing for what we believe is right in protecting our country, our families, our friends, and all our people.

We are opposed to war, as we should be. But we should endeavor to never allow ourselves to be bullied, not by any threatening potential aggressor, whoever that might be.

That is why there is every right and reason for us to reinforce ourselves even just to thoughtfully muster a minimum credible deterrence posture.

On this potential threat from the South China Sea, if we, for example, were to develop an arsenal of mobile ground missiles that could be strategically placed along the length of Palawan, this would send a message to anyone who may wish to do us harm. No matter how powerful the aggressor, at the very least, they must be prepared to suffer from us a bloody nose.



Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113001/ph-must-review-foreign-policy-strategy-amid-chinese-missile-deployment#ixzz5EnZYMQpK 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

THE Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI) has been accepting third-year college students as OJT interns (on the job training) for the past decade. We have been fortunate in having young people (aged 18 to 22 years), coming from different schools in the provinces, work with us for six to eight weeks during their summer break.

This year’s batch is the smallest. Craig Vincent Tibon, 19, Dennis Jay Paras, 20, and Nizle Caraballe, 20. They all come from Liceo de Cagayan University and will graduate with degrees in international studies or political science. Last year’s batch of four females and two males was outstanding: three finished magna cum laude with one a sobresaliente, and two cum laude. Craig, a sobresaliente himself, is on track for a summa cum laude this incoming schoolyear.

Both the CDPI and the interns benefit from these arrangements. The students get to learn to work in a real office environment and do field work on “political technocracy,” with schedules, assignments and deadlines, preparing them for an early professional life post-college. CDPI profits from this arrangement as the OJTs inject fresh insights and perspectives into our political institute; which brings me to this week’s article.

I wanted to mine the brains of my young colleagues, gauge the depth of their socio-political awareness, and for them to put to paper their take as millennials on the issues of the day. They were given less than a week to write a 400 to 800-word essay on their favorite issues with one or two suggested by CDPI.

Two out of three topics were about President Duterte while the lone female preferred the encroachment of the US bases in the Philippines.

What was evident is their predilection for sourcing news and issues almost wholly from social media. This could eventually spell the demise of the broadsheets as young readers migrate towards the exclusive use of internet platforms.

The choice of topics reflects how abreast they are with current issues. Craig’s take on the Deegong is straight, linear and bold: “…the most powerful person in the country, the President, is not exempted from being the center of the discourse…apparently, this set of millennials believe that Digong is an imperial president. They argue that the president destroys the democratic processes and institutions of the country. But there is an apparent cleavage of opinions between the pros and anti (Duterte). However, there are ‘passersby’ not (paying) attention on issues (not found) on their (FB) timelines. They are apathetic.”


Dennis on the other hand employs the Socratic method: Is Deegong a prudent and rational man or is he just another bad decision-maker? Machiavelli once said, ‘A prudent man never honors his words’…one could say that Deegong is indeed a prudent man due to his mood swings and his unique style of decision-making, which can be compared to modern artworks (complex, weird and unorthodox yet still has an appeal to the viewing public).”

Such declarations may provoke debate among the more articulate millennials, particularly those now working in various professions. Most, however, seem to be ambivalent and oblivious of the passion of the moment – the erratic behavior of DU30 – particularly those who are still ensconced within the comfortable and safe confines of their classrooms.

This is understandable as the millennials and the X Gen (40 +) barely have the firsthand memories of a dictatorship but only the lessons to be learned from books, essays and documents, mostly written by the baby boomers. The imposition of martial law and life within a dictatorial regime are alien to their experience. But the greater danger lies where lessons are not learned and the creeping conditions similar to those of the Marcos dictatorship will again descend upon us. We need to be mindful of George Santayana’s dictum.

Which brings me also to the short article of the lone female OJT on the Philippine-US relationship. Nizle’s take is that recent news signaled the sneaking intrusion of American forces into the country with the bilateral military exercise “known as Balikatan – happening next month (May 7-18, 2018). This caters to the US-Philippine arrangement in response to a recent crisis; but the cooperation and interoperability of the US and Philippine armed forces is the core of this exercise; (depicting) too the embodiment of diplomatic affairs on both sides.”

It will be recalled that past American administrations (Bush Sr./Reagan) were the champions of the Marcos dictatorship. In 1998, the US military bases in the country, were taken out, eroding US prestige in Southeast Asia. The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was signed between the two countries as a watered-down version covering the US military presence in the region, establishing the annual bilateral military exercises called Balikatan.

When the deadly Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) hit the Philippines in November 2013, the US Marines were the first to arrive and give aid to the victims through the “disaster relief crisis response.” From this sprung the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed by the two countries.

Effective for an initial period of 10 years, and enforced yearly thereafter unless terminated by either party, EDCA allows US forces to operate out of agreed locations – facilities and areas that are provided by our government through our Armed Forces (AFP). Operational control of these facilities is with the US forces although the Philippines retains ownership of the “agreed locations.” The US government asked for access to eight locations in the Philippines. We agreed to five.

On April 18, 2018, the first “EDCA project broke ground at the Pampanga Basa Air Base for a ‘multi-purpose Humanitarian Response Warehouse.’ Defense Secretary Lorenzana said it will respond to the evolving security challenges and promote peace in the Asian region”

(PDI April 18, 2018)

Except for the remnants of the leftist groups in the country, these developments did not seem to disturb the equanimity of the millennials. With all media platform inundated by news about China’s illegal infringement on our territories in the West Philippine Sea, its bullying tactics, and Malacañang’s lame and inutile response, the millennials may be tolerant and even welcome the “return of the US forces.”

The perspectives of the millennials may be different from those of the past generations; and rightly so as they have one thing going for them today absent in our time – immediate and unfettered access to information. But with this rapid growth of technology, they are inundated with facts and “pseudo facts,” and a plethora of data, opinion and viewpoints. Do they have the sophisticated mind to separate the chaff from the grain allowing them to formulate their own views? The contribution of the interns manifested in their essays puts the answer in the positive. And labeling the President as ‘imperial’ and an unorthodox decision-maker; plus, their healthy skepticism about the continued presence of America in the country, they also have the courage to say it.

This specific characteristic of the Filipino millennial is crucial in the maintenance and furtherance of the country’s democracy. We are in good hands!

BULUAN, MAGUINDANAO — Once peace in Mindanao is achieved, President Duterte will declare the whole island a land reform area and distribute government land, including military reservations, to the people.

“I’ll give it all to you. You find public land, including those where military camps are situated, that’s yours,” he said on Wednesday during the turnover of some 900 surrendered firearms from various Maguindanao towns.

Large tracts of government lands, he said, have remained idle and have not contributed to the economy. “Nothing will happen to it,” he said. “I will give it all. You plant rubber. You plant palm.”

The President said that in order to achieve peace, the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) had to be accelerated.

“Let us fast-track the [passage of the] BBL. The BBL does not mean all of Mindanao will be Moro. (BBL) would be like the Liberal or (Nacionalista) Party. It will amplify the voice of the Moro for the national government to listen to,” he said.

Before May ends

President Duterte said he was trying his best to have the BBL passed. “I am promising you, it will pass before May [ends]. If not, I will resign from the presidency,” he said.

Congress will resume sessions on May 14.

The chief executive said he would be a “useless President” if his administration could not solve the country’s problems, particularly the Moro problem.

“I want you to be established. I will talk to Nur (Moro National Liberation Front founding chair Misuari) on what the arrangement would be,” he said. “But you will have a definite Moro territory. All the government land, that’s yours.”

President Duterte also asked all Moro people to seek peace.

“Let’s continue to talk because if you shoot a policeman or a soldier, they will take up revenge. It will never end and nobody will win. Believe me,” he said.

Trouble will only further drag the country down if such incidents persisted, he added.

“We will end up a poor country forever, fighting each other,” he said. “And neither will firearms do any good for the Moro people.”

‘No one like me’

“What can it provide your family? Can you educate your family with it? Can you plant your livelihood with it?” he said.

Mr. Duterte said the Moro people should believe him because he was one of them and “because no one like me would probably come again.”

Maguindanao Gov. Esmael Mangudadatu, said the surrender of the firearms was a manifestation of the people’s support for the Duterte administration’s campaign against loose weapons.

Mangudadatu, who lost his wife and several loved ones in the so-called Maguindanao Massacre on Nov. 23, 2009, agreed that guns would not do good to Moro families.

“It will only cause trouble and we have seen that for many years now,” he said.

Mangudadatu said the provincial government would continue to convince people to surrender their guns in exchange for livelihood and the education of their children.

“We have started sponsoring students from families who do not have guns under the Maguindanao scholarship program,” he said.



Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/985694/duterte-eyes-land-reform-areas-in-mindanao#ixzz5DqqrjKmP 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

The Bureau of Immigration (BI)  has ordered an elderly Australian nun who has angered President Rodrigo Duterte to leave the country in 30 days.

In a one-page order issued on Monday, the BI revoked Sister Patricia Fox’s missionary visa before it was to expire on Sept. 5. It also directed the deactivation of her alien certificate of registration.

“She was found to have engaged in activities that are not allowed under the terms and conditions of her visa,” Immigration Commissioner Jaime Morente said on Wednesday.

Fox, a 71-year-old missionary belonging to the Our Lady of Sion congregation, was detained for a day last week after Mr. Duterte ordered her investigated for “disorderly conduct.”

The President harshly criticized the nun for having a “shameful mouth” and warned that he would not tolerate foreign visitors insulting the Philippines, which he said was a violation of the country’s sovereignty.

“You come here and insult us, you trample with our sovereignty. That will never happen,” he said. “I assure you, if you begin to malign, defame [the] government in any of those rallies there, I will order your arrest.”

Fox’s lawyer, Jobert Pahilga, said he would ask immigration authorities to reconsider their decision although it appeared to have been made upon the President’s orders.

“The President has spoken. We take it as his marching order for the BI to deport Sister Pat,” Pahilga said.

He said he had not expected the BI move, as Fox was given until May 4 to file a counteraffidavit answering complaints that she violated immigration rules.

Pahilga said BI documents supposedly showed Fox had openly and actively participated in activities such as rallies, press conferences and fact-finding missions, which are alleged violations of her missionary visa, making her an undesirable alien.

“The charge that Sister Pat is an undesirable alien has no basis in fact and in law,” Pahilga said.

He said she was not engaged in antigovernment activities and all her actions had been “consistent with her missionary work of promoting peace, social justice and human rights.”

Surprise

In a statement, Fox said she was surprised at the order to expel her.

“I am very sad that the decision at present is that I leave the Philippines,” she said. “I may lose my right to be in the Philippines but I can never lose the learnings and beautiful memories.”

She said she had worked in the Philippines since 1990 with poor farmers and tribal people in the rural areas, and with workers in urban centers where she had learned how they were impoverished.

As a Christian, she said, she had to get involved in projects to uplift their livelihood and also to push for their rights to land, peace, justice, security and human rights.

“It seems this is what has brought me into conflict with the Philippine government. I am still hoping for a chance to explain how I see my mission as a religious sister and maybe the decision can be reconsidered,” she said. (See Fox’s full statement on this page)

Opposition solons

Opposition lawmakers condemned the BI order.

“Harassing human rights advocates and faith-based organizations and individuals may succeed in the short run but it will eventually fail,” Sen. Francis Pangilinan said in a statement, adding that the Duterte administration was acting like Hitler’s Gestapo.

Tolerance lost

Sen. Bam Aquino said he would seek a Senate probe of the order, which he said was a clear harassment of people who fight abuses.

Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate said the BI action showed the Philippines “had lost the tolerance” for the missionary’s exercise of her freedom.

“What was the government afraid of?” he asked.

Reacting to the BI decision, Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said, “Dura lex sed lex (the law may be harsh, but it is the law).”

“If that’s the law, no one is above the law,” Sotto said.

Equal protection clause

Sen. Francis Escudero called the BI order “unfortunate”

but said the grant, denial or withdrawal of a visa was “discretionary on the part of any country.”

Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the equal protection clause in the Constitution did not distinguish between foreigners and citizens of the Philippines.

Limitations

The executive branch, however, could impose limitations on certain activities of foreigners that are against the interest of the state “and that is what the government has applied in the case of Sister Patricia Fox,” he said.

Lacson said Filipinos should back the BI move if allegations against Fox were proven true.

Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo said the expulsion order gave no consideration to the nun’s nearly three decades of service to the Filipino people, especially the poor.

“This is very sad. All the good Sister Pat has done to help the underprivileged, which the government has not been able to serve, is glossed over and not even appreciated while the insecurity of the present government is given weight,” Pabillo said. —With reports from Leila B. Salaverria, Maila Ager, Allan Nawal and the wires



Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/166099/sister-patricia-fox-challenges-expulsion-order#ixzz5DlPxapvB 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Journalists who “besmirch the reputation of the House of Representatives, its officials or members” may lose their credentials to cover the chamber, according to new ground rules for the media set by the House leadership.

The tough rules for Philippine media formulated by the House came as media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said that hostility toward journalists was growing worldwide, often encouraged by political leaders — even in democratic countries.

The group’s annual global index of press freedom released on Wednesday found an overall rise in animosity toward reporters and a drop in freedoms, notably in former Soviet states but also in countries from the United States to the Philippines.

The House Press and Public Affairs Bureau (PPAB) released this week “institutional codified rules for media coverage” of the House in an apparent move to toughen policies on news reporting and limit access by reporters to lawmakers.

Congress is in recess, but will resume session on May 15. The House is expected to tackle the impeachment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and pass urgent measures, including the Bangsamoro Basic Law and the federalism bill.

In formulating the new rules, the House media office cited “a need to give more teeth to the House’s efforts of ensuring a systematic and orderly media coverage that will be beneficial to both the House and the media, and ultimately to the citizenry.”

Media-bashing

PPAB said the press card of a House-accredited reporter may be revoked “if the bearer besmirches the reputation of the House of Representatives, its officials or members.”

Reporters Without Borders said many democratically elected leaders “no longer see the media as part of democracy’s essential underpinning,” singling out US President Donald Trump for his media-bashing.

The group also noted the recent killings of reporters in European Union members Slovakia and Malta.

Authoritarian regimes are trying to “export their vision” that the media should be compliant, according to the watchdog.

Other revocation grounds

It said hate speech targeting journalists was amplified on social networks by government-friendly trolls in India, Russia and elsewhere.

In the House of Representatives, other grounds for revocation of media credentials are the following:

 

• If applicant/bearer is found to have made false claims
• If applicant/bearer is involved in activities that run counter to or violate the policies of the House
• If bearer abuses the privileges and entitlements extended to House-accredited media
• If bearer is found guilty of gross misconduct
• If the bearer commits any other similar acts or misdeed

 

The new media code includes guidelines on which gate news vehicles may enter the Batasang Pambansa compound (where lawmakers hold sessions) in Quezon City, the areas that accredited reporters and photographers may access, and rules governing live TV recording of plenary sessions and committee meetings, and interviews with House members, including the Speaker.

Ambush interviews

For instance, on-the-spot interviews of House members and guests and stand-up or live reporting may be conducted at the left and right sides of the main lobby, according to the new rules.

Interviews and TV stand-up live reporting will be disallowed at the main lobby area “to avoid obstructing the entry to and exit from the plenary hall of House members.”

There will be no stand-up or live reporting and ambush interviews of House members, resource persons, invited guests, or any other personage in the corridors or hallways of the House buildings, the rules state.

It likewise sets rules for the accreditation of news journalists as well as their relievers.

Most of these rules had been in effect since the 17th Congress began session in 2016. —With a report from AP



Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/985481/house-toughens-rules-for-media#ixzz5Dl7rwlFV 
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

LAST week’s column, “SC co-equal branch?” (TMT, April 18) discussed the “independence” of the judiciary visualized from the angle of the Sereno quo warranto petition, and the President’s purported non-involvement in this affair. Today’s column will touch on the role of the third co-equal branch of government, the Congress, with respect to the clear admonition of DU30 that Chief Justice Sereno is now his enemy and needs to be booted out.

“I will ask Speaker Alvarez now, kindly fast-track the impeachment…do it now. Cut the drama or else I will do it for you.”

“It will be done once we resume sessions,” Speaker Alvarez meekly replied. (Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 10, 2018)

I have yet to parse what the President meant exactly by his statement except for its clear element of a threat by the executive against half of the legislature.

Sereno’s goose is cooked, thanks to the House of Representative (HoR) which will now have to do the President’s bidding, reducing itself into an institutional doormat. By passing on to the Senate the bill of particulars, this act will be equivalent to a messy self-castration by the honorable congressmen. The Chief Justice will now seek justice from the Senate sitting as judges in an impeachment court. If the Corona scenario will be replayed, we are going to have senators making a lot of moolah from the endeavor. The irony is simply overwhelming.

This column will not dwell on the mechanics of the impeachment of the Chief Justice, if ever there is one. I am looking at this sordid affair from another angle: the imperial presidency and its impact on the bureaucracy and the body politic. In a three-part series on “the imperial presidency” (TMT, June 22 and 29; July 6, 2017), I used as reference an excellent book by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. published in 1974. I will cite the same reference to examine an angle on the actuations of the Deegong that encroaches upon the principle of the co-equality of the three branches of government. This is not a treatise on the principle of checks and balance enshrined in our Constitution. This is simply a depiction of how the executive branch bullies the judiciary and the legislature – and gets away with it.

The imperial presidency hypothesis in Schlesinger’s book is buttressed by the long history of the American presidency. I wrote then: “My take on this book is the that the evolution of the American presidency has been impacted and eventually distorted by a combination of the acts of the respective occupant himself, the non-vigilance of the American Congress and the realities and exigencies of geopolitics; thus, giving rise to the imperial presidency.”

Schlesinger wrote: “During time of emergencies, US Presidents unilaterally assumed enormous powers but ceased control once the emergency is gone. Congress thereby reasserting itself.” (Lincoln during the American civil war and Roosevelt in World War 2)

In the Philippine context, the best example of the imperial presidency was that of Ferdinand Marcos. His was the fruit of a series of perversions and weakening of democratic institutions, bits and pieces at first, then castration of the Congress and the judiciary, culminating in a purported crisis, one of his own making, and then the declaration of martial law, establishing his regime as a full-fledged dictatorship.

Unlike the counterpart American Presidents who unilaterally ceased control and power once the emergency was over, in the case of Marcos, his powers were not unilaterally ceded and lasted for a good part of two decades ending in political upheaval in 1986.

In the present context, the Philippines with its weak democratic institutions is ripe for the emergence of a strong-willed leader. I wrote then that the Deegong was inevitable, that what was needed was a strongman President in “a weak state populated by weak leaders.”

This is what we have now, an imperial presidency, courtesy of weak institutions, especially the co-equal branches riven by conflicts of personal and political self-interest. We may soon see the total taming and acquiescence of a lame judiciary and the surrender of congressional prerogatives and subsequent dismantling of the principle of checks and balance.

And in the dominant executive branch the exercise of arbitrary decisions by the imperial president will be the norm. We already have inklings of that when the DU30 proclaimed what could be the Duterte Doctrine on corruption: He said he will “…not tolerate any corruption in his administration and he will dismiss from office any of his men (women) who are tainted even by a ‘whiff of corruption’; and he is ready to sack any public officials even on the basis of false allegations of corruption.” (Inquirer.net, March 30, 2017, emphasis mine)

This is a dangerous attribute of an imperial presidency, and I wrote then: “There is no question that the president has the power to terminate from government anyone who fails to serve at his pleasure. But the President must be subject to the minimums of fairness and the etiquette of dismissal, for no apparent reason than that the process is widely regarded as civilized behavior. But more importantly, there is a greater overarching principle that covers the conduct of the mighty, the powerful and the humble – the rule of law.”

The seasoning of the imperial presidency will continue as PRRD indulges in the capricious usurpation of decisions which by the principle of subsidiarity should have been lodged with his alter-egos – cabinet members and their departments and the regulatory agencies. The closure of Boracay upon the President’s pronouncement that it was a cesspool and his declaration to turn it into a land reform area have elicited contradictory responses from his own bureaucracy.

Similar presidential outbursts meant to shock and dramatize have been the style of the president from the very beginning, when he threatened to fatten Manila Bay with the bodies of illegal drug pushers and the enforcement of his dreaded tokhang. All these, plus his intimidating demeanor is erroneously equated as the quintessence of political will.

These anomalies are just symptoms of decades-long history of systemic discordance in our practice of governance; one that is grounded in a unitary presidential government with a highly centralized authority. The resultant weakness of democratic institutions has inevitably augured the creeping evils and abusive measures which are manifested in an imperial presidency.

Paradoxically, with an inherent rotten system; with the dismantling of the concept of “co-equal branch of government for check and balance”; and absent the traditional moral voice of the formal churches—Duterte’s imperial presidency could be what the doctor prescribed.

Except, if allowed unchecked, we might just find ourselves one day ruled by another full dictatorship!