Philippine Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago just lost the right to preside over the hearing of the World Bank report linking the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and his cohorts to alleged collusive practices. This after she “kissed and make up” with her two colleagues, Ping Lacson and Pong Biazon, who accused her of railroading the previous hearing. More than those yucky kisses, Santiago just proved how unstable she is when given the chance to handle such a serious international issue. That shows you why she lost that post in the International Court of Justice.
Now, she’s at it again, teaming up with Joker Arroyo. She wants to abolish the VFA, which the Supreme Court already deemed “constitutional”. Obviously, she’s right with this one. The issue is sovereignty. You can’t just let a convicted rapist, whatever color or nationality he belongs to, to rape our women and pay for the deed without experiencing the same thing inside Muntinlupa.
The Smith issue is a “push and pull”, one that would strain relations even further between the US and the Philippines.
In foreign relations, the paramount consideration is always the national interest. Is it our national interest to pick a fight now with the World Bank and the Obama-led US government, given that the rest of world is slowly aligning themselves with them?
While we fight over custody of a convicted rapist, Senators Santiago, Enrile and Joker just got cozy with the Chinese and gave the Kalayaan Islands and Scarborough shoals last night. Probably these senators just got envious with Manny Villar who became a success as the country’s biggest real estate magnate. In a few days, their friend, Arroyo, will be signing away years of arduous foreign affairs work down the drain.
This just shows the world how fuzzy our foreign affairs policy right now, fuzzier than Miriam’s hair. It shows that we’ll reward you if you’re a country who does’nt give a damn about corruption and exploitation of natural resources.
If you’re like the World Bank who frowns on corrupt practices and you’re the US government who arrests launderers, you’re not welcome here. But, if you’re someone who gives a loan of US$ 8 billion, open to giving billions to government officials just to surrender your telecomm infrastructure or your rich oil and fishing grounds, it’s easier to surrender sovereignty.
That’s how we look at “sovereignty”.
More than this though, we just gave the Chinese dominion over us, without any declaration that we’re a protectorate or a Communist affiliated state. It just took close deals over golf games with ZTE and those Chinese construction firms for us to accede giving away our sovereignty over those lands.
It’s an issue of sovereignty when America got dirty publicity when Corporal Smith did that dastardly deed. Smith became the embodiment of our collective hate.
We don’t hate the Chinese for raping our fields, getting those fishing grounds or exploiting our mines and oil fields. There’s no one in the mainland who raped our women, no poster boy we can heap our curses to.
So, we’re saying, give billions to our government officials and we forget the rape to our sovereignty. Rape our women and you’ll get nothing in return.
Or rather, we hate going to war with the Chinese over some islands but would love to fight it out with the Americans over a rapist.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Pat,
Correction the recent 9-4 SC decision affirmed the constitutionality of the VFA.
What it declared illegal and in violation of the VFA was the Romulo-Kenney side agreement on Smith’s custodial arrangements.
“The issue is sovereignty. You can’t just let a convicted rapist, whatever color or nationality he belongs to, to rape our women and pay for the deed without experiencing the same thing inside Muntinlupa.”
So, is it a violation of our sovereignty that some diplomats are largely exempt from “the same thing inside Muntinlupa” even when they commit crimes?
(It is irrelevant to this question that Daniel Smith is not a diplomat, for I am just trying to be clear what you really mean about sovereignty and how the criminal laws are to be applied to non Filipino citizens within our jurisdiction.
For example Amb. Kenney could rape Miriam Defensor Santiago and she would never experience the “same thing inside Muntinlupa.”
Further correction Ding, SCoRP only said the Romulo Kenney Agreement “was not in accord” with the VFA’s phrase “by the Philippines”. It was a very weak and ambiguous statement hanging on a very thin thread as insubstantial as a wisp of hair which probably explains why the non-deadlined order of the Court was for a renegotiation of the detention arrangements. It has been reported, redacted, aggrandized and turned into “illegal violation of the VFA” by the media. Actually, I think the whole order sustains the status quo, but as usual leaves enough in the indistinct shadows so anyone can read what they want in it. The Media has latched onto this tiny bit of it, and swept under the rug the hugeness of “the VFA is constitutional!” repeated by the SCoRP from its 1999 decision.
This bit about the Romulo Kenney Agreement is just a bone being tossed by SCoRP to the lynch mob for them to chew on for a little while.
It is most worthy of note that the petitions for certiorari of Salonga and Nicole were premised on the claim that the VFA is unconstitutional or ought to be declared so as a result of the events in question.
That SCoRP rejected this prayer, 9-4 and upheld the VFA as compleatly constitutional — that should’ve been the headline.
The Palace is making fools of everybody.
So Pat, when you say Daniel Smith should “experience the same thing inside Muntinglupa” do you mean the same as Romeo Jalosjos or Leo Echegarray? Or something in between?
Pat,
What is more important now, our sense of national sovereignty as you seem to define it, or justice for Nicole. Because if let us say the VFA is abrogated by the PHilippines, that would be tantamount to withdrawing the legal guarantees and arrangements specified therein. The US govt would have the moral obligation and justifiable cause to take their citizen and soldier out of Philippine jurisdiction since he would then be completely at our mercy.
Without Balikatan and VFA, the NPA would then be freer to violate PHilippine sovereignty for real.
Gabriela would celebrate. So would Daniel Smith!
Hair splitting. “was not in accord” GRP was told to renegotiate the Smith custodial terms meaning the Rommulo-Kenney agreement was thrown out right?
Ding, by “thrown out” do you mean to understand that the VFA itself is unconstitutional? or just the agreement was not in accord with the VFA? Is “not in accord with the VFA” the same as “illegal”? Maybe it is hairsplitting, but the call for renegotiation is acknowledgement that there has to be mutual agreement and makes any dire interpretation of the ruling uncalled for.
If it is as clearcut to the SCoRP as it seems to be to some, then why did they not simply order that Smith be sent to Bilibid forthwith?
You know what I think will happen?
The govt will negotiate with the Americans and move Daniel Smith to a facility controlled “by Philippine authorities” — but it won’t be Muntinglupa. It will be Tanay!
DJB, the Romulo-Kenney agreement.
Ding, It’s being renegotiated as ordered.
Why no order to Bilibid “forthwith”?
Honestly Ding, reading the plain language of the Azcuna ponencia, and not the newspaper accounts or blog posts, all it amounts to saying regarding the Romulo Kenney Agreement is that the place of detention ought to be controlled “by Philippine authorities”–with the agreement of both parties to be negotiated.
Mismo, Manong.
The trouble is they want serious minded Judges
in the International Court of Justices. They dont
want Actor Judges, Judges who pander to TV cameras,
Judges who talk sense, not nonsense, etc…
when those us fighter jets zoomed over philippine skies in august 1989 and they were the only ones allowed in philippine skies,,,all is over about souvereignty….wake up people….get to reality….
pbeleno,
Perceptive, you are. You deserve a high five, dude :)