Our Misbegotten China Policy

OUR MISBEGOTTEN CHINA POLICY

WHICH ‘PATRIMONIAL ASSETS’?

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:09 AM March 06, 2019

…Any citizen, whether it’s Colmenares or an ordinary person who can read and understand contracts and their implications, has the right to question the government about the deals it enters into with foreign governments or entities on the people’s behalf.

Imputing ill motives to such an inquiry, rather than answering the issues raised and welcoming the opportunity to clarify the matter with the public, is about the basest response there is.

The loan agreement with China for the Chico River Pump Irrigation Project in Kalinga, the first Chinese-funded flagship project under the administration’s “Build, build, build” infrastructure program, is completely aboveboard, according to the Department of Finance — “reviewed, negotiated and approved” by the DOF, the Department of Justice and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and likewise greenlighted by the Monetary Board.

Considering all factors such as project cost and foreign exchange risks, the effective rates between recently signed Japanese and Chinese loan agreements “are actually quite close to each other,” the DOF said.

Indeed, in the copy of the deal obtained by Colmenares, the project has an interest rate of 2 percent. While higher than Japan’s rates of 0.25 percent to 0.75 percent, in no way can that be called “exorbitant.”

But Colmenares is on to something in raising the alarm over a number of provisions. Section 8.1 of the contract, for example, stipulates that the Philippine government “irrevocably waives any immunity on the grounds of sovereign …” on its “patrimonial assets and assets dedicated to commercial use.”

…But the Philippines can pay the debt, argued Assistant Finance Secretary Antonio Lambino. The country’s debt to China stands at only 4.5 percent of the total debt, compared to 9.5 percent with Japan.

“Kayang-kaya nating bayaran ang mga utang na ito” (We can easily repay this loan), he said, and so any worries to the contrary are “hypothetical.”

That, of course, hardly answers the question. What IF something unexpected happens and the Philippines finds itself unable to pay? The DOF, take note, also failed to foresee and forestall the painful inflation spike last year due, in part, to the sudden rise in world crude prices.

If something unanticipated does happen within the 20-year span of the China deal that renders the Philippines unable to settle its debt, the provision on “patrimonial assets” as payment kicks in.

So what will the Philippines give up? Or, more properly, what has this administration committed the next Philippine governments and generations to fork over in case of a loan default? (In drawing up this proviso, were the DOF’s army of vetters and analysts perhaps living under a rock to not have heard of the unfortunate fates of Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Maldives and other countries that had to give up their own strategic national assets on the back of Chinese loans?)

There’s also Section 8.8, which demands that “all the terms, conditions and the standard of fees hereunder …” be kept “strictly confidential.”

Why the inordinate secrecy?

And the most flabbergasting provision of all: Section 8.4 says, “This agreement as well as the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of China.”

If this deal was thoroughly vetted as Lambino et al. say it was, what were the economic managers thinking in the first place when they acquiesced to have the contract carry such a patently lopsided provision in favor of China?

Why agree to placing the Philippines in a subordinate position where it would have to submit to the laws of the very country that has displayed hostile, aggressive designs on its national interests?

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/119966/which-patrimonial-assets#ixzz5rpWeKrX9

CHINA COULD SEIZE GAS IN REED BANK IF PH CAN’T PAY LOANS – CARPIO

By: Frances Mangosing - Reporter / @FMangosingINQ

INQUIRER.net / 01:16 PM March 24, 2019

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines should be wary about the Chico River Pump Irrigation Loan Agreement because it could potentially allow China to take the gas-rich Reed Bank (Recto Bank) in the West Philippine Sea if it is unable to pay the $62-million loan, Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio warned.

“In case of default by the Philippines in repayment of the loan, China can seize, to satisfy any arbitral award in favor of China, ‘patrimonial assets and assets dedicated to commercial use’ of the Philippine government,” the senior magistrate said.

The deal, said to be the first flagship infrastructure project to be financed by China under the administration’s Build, Build, Build program, was signed in April 2018.

In his presentation at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila on Friday, Carpio showed parts of the agreement, “which is expected to be the template for all other Chinese loans to the Philippines.”

Under paragraph 8.1 of the Loan Agreement, the Philippines expressly waived immunity over all its assets except those used properties of Philippine embassies and missions; those under Philippine military control; and those assets for “public or governmental use as distinguished from patrimonial assets and assets dedicated to commercial use.”

The rich gas field in Reed Bank falls under the category of “patrimonial assets and assets dedicated to commercial use,” Carpio said.

Seismic surveys have indicated that Reed Bank is rich in oil and gas deposits. Based on the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, it is within the Philippine exclusive economic zone, thus the government can explore and exploit resources there.

China, which has rejected the ruling, is also claiming the Reed Bank.

Carpio warned that the loan agreement is governed by Chinese law: “In case of dispute, arbitration shall be conducted by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) under CIETAC arbitration rules.

“The award of CIETAC is final and binding. The arbitration shall be held in Beijing. The Philippines expressly waived any sovereign immunity on “the enforcement of any arbitral award,” he said.

Under CIETAC rules, “China will always have a majority in the arbitral panel,” and Carpio said the Philippines won’t have a chance of winning.

Carpio also put a spotlight on the confidentiality clause of the loan agreement, which is not in line with the Philippine Constitution that says Filipinos have the right to information and access to documents of public concern.

Early this month, government officials guaranteed that a number of agencies vetted the China loan before it was approved.

Still, Carpio cautioned that the Philippines might end up like a few countries falling into China’s debt trap.

“If the cost is bloated (there was no public bidding), and this happens to the other loans, then the Philippines may have a hard time paying,” he said. /cbb

Read more: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/173827/china-could-seize-gas-in-reed-bank-if-ph-cant-pay-loans-carpio#ixzz5rpZniqLk

The stupidity of the China loan agreement signed by President Dumbo speaks for itself. 

The China loan agreement is a time bomb. It’s purposely designed that way. 

I’ve seen this movie before.

‘LAZY,’ ‘SLOWPOKE’
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:28 AM March 14, 2019
That’s the sweeping description of Filipino workers that was made…by somebody the Filipino workers themselves must have thought would be more sympathetic to their plight: Ramon Tulfo.

…These days, he’s a friend to and strident defender of the powers that be, and has even been rewarded for it with a plummy-sounding position — special Philippine envoy to China.

…“Mabagal silang magtrabaho, puro satsat, puro daldal, ang tagal ’pag nag-merienda (They’re slow workers who talk a lot and take long breaks),” he said. Filipino workers “take time, pupunta sa CR, iinom ng tubig, iihi… (they often take restroom breaks, drink water). You know why developers prefer Chinese workers? Hardworking. Filipino workers aren’t respectful anymore. ’Yung mga Pinoy workers, ’pag pupunta sa job site, saka lang dun magpe-prepare ng kanilang tools, sigarilyo nang sigarilyo. Mga Chinese, diretso na, ’di sila nag-uusap, talagang trabaho (When they’re on the job site, that’s the only time they prepare their tools, and they smoke a lot. The Chinese go straight to work, they don’t even talk, they just work).”

…An estimated 2.3 million Filipinos are toiling in foreign lands at this very minute, a great many of them in construction and other menial jobs. They wouldn’t be there if they were indolent, inefficient, or sloppy in their work.

…Tulfo…prefers the docile, uncomplaining breed of worker, of which, in his mind, the Chinese excel. But of course: Chinese workers come from a country where labor unions and the right to strike are banned, where workers cannot organize themselves, where the government is authoritarian, harsh on dissenters, and nonaccountable to its citizens. Perhaps Tulfo is an envoy of the wrong country?

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120119/lazy-slowpoke#ixzz5tf6f3ZM0

BYE, ICC

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:12 AM March 17, 2019

…starting today, barring any last-minute intervention from the Supreme Court (a doubtful prospect), the Philippines will no longer be a member of the ICC — because Mr. Duterte, in the face of a possible investigation by the court into the massive casualties of his signature war on drugs, ordered the country’s withdrawal from it a year ago.

…Even as the President and his advisers may imagine he can successfully escape accountability by yanking the country away from the ICC’s gaze, it’s ordinary Filipinos that may find themselves at the losing end of this cynical and self-serving political maneuver.

Last year, lawyer Barry Gutierrez argued before the Supreme Court that the ICC provides a “safety mechanism” for Filipinos who want to seek redress for their grievances, especially when local courts are “unable or unwilling to actually provide justice to victims of these serious crimes enumerated in the ICC.”

Another legal expert, senatorial candidate Chel Diokno who founded the De La Salle University College of Law, warned that the withdrawal virtually gives the Duterte administration carte blanche impunity, as it “deprives… citizens of one remedy to grave and extraordinary crimes… This is removal of the protection of ordinary Filipinos against government abuse. This will cause injustice and lack of accountability.”

The withdrawal may impact the country in other ways. The Philippines, for instance, can no longer make China accountable for crimes of aggression in the West Philippine Sea once it’s out of the ICC, pointed out Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

All these, because the President refuses to account for the gravity and consequences of his brutal domestic policy, and has decided, in his pique at the global rebuke, to drag the country down the rabbit hole with him.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120178/bye-icc#ixzz60tnOzc7A

YES, THE CHINESE LOANS ARE ONEROUS

By: Solita Collas-Monsod - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:20 AM March 30, 2019

The Department of Finance (DOF) recently uploaded on its website a summary of infrastructure flagship projects funded in part through official development assistance, with signed agreements. It also uploaded all the loan agreements involved.

…The issue, as I see it, is: Are the China loans onerous? Are there any provisions in the loan agreement that would in effect give China the opportunity to take over the patrimonial assets of the Philippines?

Carpio, in a lecture to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said there are, and cited  provisions from the Chico River loan agreement. Specifically, in case of default by the Philippines in repayment of the loan, China can seize, to satisfy any arbitral award in favor of China, “patrimonial assets and assets dedicated to commercial use” of the Philippine government.

These patrimonial assets, etc., include oil-and-gas-rich Reed Bank in the West Philippine Sea, according to Carpio, and it will be easy for the Chinese to get a hold of them because according to the loan agreement, (1) any arbitration will be held in Beijing; and (2) any court cases will have to be brought in China, because Chinese law will apply. In other words, the deck is stacked against us.

…So, are the China loans onerous? Carpio, yes. Panelo, it won’t happen anyway. DOF, no, practically boilerplate.

Without any further information, we, Reader, would have to decide on the basis of the credibility of the parties.  I, for example, would take Carpio over Panelo and the DOF.  But a Dutertard (is that what they call them?) would take Panelo anytime.

…here I am, at your service. I went over all nine loan agreements, with the financials all summarized by the DOF.

So what’s the verdict, on the basis of the information supplied by the DOF? The Chinese loans are onerous. Examples: They say specifically that the laws of China will obtain in any disagreement, and we have to go through their courts; their grounds for default are definitely in favor of China; arbitration is to be held in Beijing (Chico River) or Hong Kong (Kaliwa Dam); and the waiver of immunity over patrimonial assets is not mentioned in any other contract.

Financially, I ask you, Reader. Who would you rather borrow from: Japan and Korea, who give you 40 years to pay (with 10 or 12 years before you pay the principal), at interest rates ranging from 0.09 percent to 0.26 percent; or China, who gives you 20 years to pay (with seven  years’ grace), at interest of 2.0 percent? A no-brainer.

solita_monsod@yahoo.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120448/yes-the-chinese-loans-are-onerous#ixzz64CEvGagY

A BULLIED NATION BEGS FOR LOANS

By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:04 AM April 01, 2019

Our country’s loan agreement with China for the Chico River irrigation project is a disgrace to our country’s honor. And it was obtained by sacrificing the sanctity of our Constitution.

Imagine a bully who seizes your fishpond despite a court decision declaring his claim of ownership illegal. Instead of raging in anger, you go down on your knees and beg the bully to give you a loan. The bully goes on to impose loan conditions that strip you of whatever remains of your dignity. You choose the bully despite the willingness of other lenders who are eager to help.

This was the virtual behavior of our government even after China had seized our exclusive economic zone in the West Philippine Sea, built military garrisons on our shoals, destroyed coral reefs that serve as irreplaceable spawning grounds of marine life in our waters, and drove away our fishermen from their traditional fishing areas. More recently, our military disclosed that over 600 Chinese ships have been circling our Pagasa Island in the Spratlys.

Our government’s actuations were plainly wrong. It agreed to set aside crucial provisions of our Constitution in order to accommodate the bully that is the People’s Republic of China.

By agreeing to keep the loan terms confidential, our government virtually obligated itself to blindfold the Filipino people. The right of Filipinos to know the terms of an indebtedness they have been indentured to pay for the next 20 years was bargained away by their own government.

Our government has no power to commit such a sacrilegious act, and its commission of such misdeed is a betrayal of public trust that amounts to a culpable violation of the Constitution.

The recent release to the public of the terms of the loan agreement — a year after it was signed and only after much public pressure — does not mitigate the gravity of the constitutional violation. The cavalier and repeated manner by which the government commits this violation in its various agreements with China is reprehensible.

By agreeing to an unconstitutional condition of confidentiality, and then breaching the confidentiality, our government has armed China with an arsenal to use if contractual conflict arises between the two countries.

Another loan term that is questionable is our country’s irrevocable waiver of sovereign immunity, which opens up the possibility of the seizure of our state properties in case of loan default. The loan agreement is very specific on the three kinds of properties that are immune from seizure — properties for diplomatic use, military use, and public or governmental use. Because the waiver of sovereignty is loosely written, the loan agreement allows China to argue that all of our other state properties, regardless of whether we domestically classify them as patrimonial or public domain, can be seized in case of default. This includes the oil-rich Recto Bank near Palawan.

There’s another problematic issue with the liberal wording of our “irrevocable waive(r) (of) any right of immunity on the grounds of sovereign or otherwise.” Our Constitution prohibits foreign ownership of our lands. But since our Constitution is our instrument of sovereignty, it’s not farfetched for China to force the argument that we’ve waived even the constitutional restriction on foreign ownership of our lands.

We are dealing with a lender country with a history of forcing its self-serving arguments despite international law to the contrary, as we’ve seen in the West Philippine Sea issue.

Our government gives the excuse that all this talk about the potential seizure of our state properties is useless chatter, because it’s impossible for our country to default on its loans. There’s a comparable scenario that demonstrates the amoral nature of this argument. Imagine our country’s richest businessman, Manny Villar, using one of his children as chattel collateral to guarantee his loan. When public uproar erupts, he dismissively says it’s impossible for him to default on his loans, anyway. Our government leaders will applaud in agreement.

Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120484/a-bullied-nation-begs-for-loans#ixzz6BLYVRpN3

NO TO ARBITRATION IN CHINA

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:12 AM April 05, 2019

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo says the Philippines will never default in its obligations to China. But supposing the work of the Chinese engineers on the China-funded projects is highly defective so that the Philippines refuses to pay the loan? There will then be arbitration in China. Will the Chinese arbitrators side with the Philippines? They will, of course, declare the Philippines in default.

The Philippines needs good lawyers to go over the loan agreements. The first thing they should do is to disapprove arbitration proceedings in China and insist on arbitration in a neutral country, perhaps Singapore.

RENE TORRES, rentorres@yahoo.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120559/no-to-arbitration-in-china#ixzz6BuorGkwr

DREDGING OUR ASSETS

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:08 AM April 09, 2019

The daring attempt of a Chinese-manned vessel to conduct illegal dredging operations off the coast of Lobo, Batangas, is an incident that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Without warning, and with not the slightest show of courtesy, the 2,900-ton Sierra Leone-registered hopper dredger called MV Emerald suddenly appeared on March 28 off the coast of Barangay Lagadlarin in Lobo, causing alarm among the residents and officials of the fishing village.

That surprise turned to indignation when officials learned the ship’s dubious purpose: to dredge and desilt Lobo River purportedly for flood-control purposes, and then ship the sand to Hong Kong for the construction of a runway for its international airport.

The local officials were aghast. They were not aware of the project, as they have an existing flood-control project with a local company. They were also afraid that dredging would damage the marine resources near their 30-hectare mangrove forest. Lobo is part of the Verde Island Passage, a marine sanctuary described by scientists as the “center of the center of marine shorefish biodiversity” in the world.

A representative of Seagate Engineering and Buildsystems, a company based in San Pascual, Batangas, came to the village to apologize and inform the locals that his company would put up signages regarding the Lobo River dredging project.

“I went totally hysterical and raised my voice at him,” recalled Mafriel Dimaano, village chief of Barangay Lagadlarin. “I told him, how come their ship came ahead and only thought of putting up signages afterwards. We were not informed at all.”

Seagate brandished a 2008 memorandum of agreement (MOA) it supposedly signed with the previous mayor of Lobo, and an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in 2018.

The MOA allows Seagate to dredge up to 2 million cubic meters of sand from the Lobo River. Seagate would sell the sand at $2 per metric ton to Synergy Plus Holdings Ltd., for use in the reclamation and construction of the Hong Kong International Airport Three Runway System.

But, said Lobo Mayor Gaudioso “Jurly” Manalo, “a basic and fundamental rule is they communicate with us… We don’t even allow our own fishing rafts to anchor there, how much more a foreign vessel?”

Thanks to the alert and courageous local officials of Lobo, the ship’s work was halted. National officials reacted belatedly to cancel the Seagate ECC and send the ship away. But Seagate’s Leo Campos wants to have the last word: He said they will come back soon and continue the project.

How was this company able to get an ECC for a project that was harmful to a critical area that the locals had taken pains to protect? Environment Undersecretary Benny Antiporda was quoted as saying that Seagate even presented deceiving permits, and that its real purpose was not to dredge but to quarry minerals. Who abetted this foreign company’s audacity to engage in deception and run roughshod over local laws?

And it may not be an isolated case. Bayan Muna chair Neri Colmenares said similar Chinese-manned dredging ships have been seen just this month off Zambales, undertaking black sand mining operations. And in 2016, Zambales Gov. Amor Deloso claimed that mountains in Zambales were flattened and the soil used by China to reclaim and fortify its hold on Scarborough Shoal, which it had seized from the Philippines.

There is reason to be concerned, in view of the many alarming concessions being given to China by the Duterte administration, including relaxing the entry of Chinese workers into the country and acceding to what many have pointed out are patently onerous loan agreements.

…send the message that Filipinos will fight for their patrimony even if their government won’t.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120658/dredging-our-assets#ixzz6CsVNtGFJ

IS CHINA OUR ‘FRIEND’?

By: Richard Heydarian - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:05 AM April 09, 2019

…Is China our “friend”? …has President Duterte’s Beijing-friendly policies worked in favor of our national interest?

Since the beginning of this year, an armada of Chinese paramilitary vessels has swarmed Pag-asa Island (Thitu), which has hosted Filipino troops and civilians for more than four decades.

In many ways, this is increasingly looking like Mr. Duterte’s own version of the Scarborough Shoal crisis, except on a far worse scale.

There have been as many as 657 sightings of, and 275 individual Chinese vessels involved, in what increasingly looks like an all-out siege on Pag-asa. This is a classic Chinese “gray zone” strategy aimed at displacing other claimant states through deployment of ostensibly “fishing” vessels instead of using warships.

The armada of Chinese vessels hits four birds with one stone (or rather 275 vessels).

First, it restricts our movements in the area, including our fishermen. Second, it threatens and intimidates our supply lines and surveillance activities. Third, it spies and monitors our maintenance activities on Pag-asa. And lastly, it prevents us from building structures on Sandy Cay, a low-tide elevation within the territorial sea of Pag-asa.

Having built giant artificial islands (likely using our own soil) and fully militarized them with state-of-the-art weapons, China ultimately wants to dominate the whole South China Sea without firing a single shot. And the deployment of paramilitary forces is crucial to the fulfillment of this objective.

And yet, Mr. Duterte insists that China is a “friend,” an ally crucial for our national development goals.

In fact, the first time I heard this line from him was during a 2016 interview with China’s CCTV (Now CGTN) channel, where a reporter interviewed Mr. Duterte,….

…the former city mayor not only described China as a developmental partner, but also expressed a defeatist view on the South China Sea disputes.

Just months before the arbitral tribunal verdict on the South China Sea disputes came out, Mr. Duterte told the Chinese news channel: “If we cannot enforce [it], and if the United Nations cannot enforce its judgment, then what the heck?”

…Sensing our defeatism, however, China has only accelerated what former president Fidel Ramos described to me as the “creeping invasion” of the West Philippine Sea. This is why, as former ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales said, “You are stupid if you don’t assert your rights.”

Facts on the ground clearly confirm former foreign secretary Albert del Rosario’s Orwellian conundrum throughout his five years of dealing with Beijing — namely, that whatever they say tends to be “the opposite of truth.”

China may have been a friend at some point in history, the same way imperial Japan and 19th-century America were our enemies at another point.

But at this juncture, China is not treating us as a “friend,” but more like a potential vassal state for an emerging global empire. As things stand, China may be a friend of Mr. Duterte, but not necessarily of the Filipino people.

rheydarian@inquirer.com.ph

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120652/is-china-our-friend#ixzz6CsWXhBWg

PHILIPPINES HAS WALKED INTO CHINA DEBT TRAP

By: Hermenegildo C. Cruz - @inquirerdotnet09:03 AM April 10, 2019

Let us consider this scenario. A basketball coach consented to the following rules: The game will be played in his home court. However, the referees will be chosen by his opponent. If the game ends in a dispute, a tribunal located in his opponent’s territory and not in a neutral place will judge the dispute.

In addition, the game will be governed by two sets of rules, an overt set known to all, and a covert set of rules known only to his opponent. In case of conflict, the covert rules will override the overt rules. Moreover, the covert rules can be changed at any time at the pleasure of his team’s opponent.

Needless to say, the coach who accepted these rules will be promptly labeled a nut.

The foregoing comes to mind based on the report that the loan for the Kaliwa Dam will be governed by Chinese law and the tribunal that will decide the case is based in Hong Kong. Our officials who signed this agreement ignored the reality of doing business with a communist government. China’s Communist Party has monolithic power; there is no independent judiciary. If one has a dispute with an American businessman, he can bring suit in any US court and he will have a fair chance of winning. The United States has an independent judiciary. US President Donald Trump cannot dictate the decisions of US courts. Proof of this is the many times Trump has been rebuffed by US courts.

But in China, Xi Jinping, the “Great Leader,” can do no wrong. He can dictate the decisions of Chinese courts.

In addition, there are two sets of laws in a communist country — the laws of the state which are known to all, and the covert law loosely termed party rules. In case of dispute, the party rules override state laws. The worst part is that the party rules are issued in the broadest terms possible, such as “adventurism,” “parasitism,” “antisocialist conduct” and “deviationism.” Nikita Khrushchev was deposed for “adventurism” for having installed nuclear missiles in Cuba without the sanction of the Politburo. The morbid joke in the Soviet Union then was, “The party rules are short, the trials are shorter, and the lives of those charged are the shortest.”

“Deviationism,” loosely meaning deviation from party doctrine, is often used to justify the periodic purges of communist party members. Many Bolsheviks, including comrades-in-arms of Vladimir Lenin, were executed on orders of Joseph Stalin for deviationism.

Party rules are what a “Great Leader” like Stalin, Mao Zedong or Xi says they are, and that’s the problem.

…A complex project like the Kaliwa Dam has so many aspects that could end up in a dispute. Settling the dispute in a Chinese court and using Chinese laws are the equivalent of playing a card game with a stacked deck. The judge in China who will decide the case is not truly independent, when he knows that at some point he could be charged with “antisocialist” conduct for the court decisions he makes.

From the perspective of our laws, serious questions also arise by making the details of the loan confidential. It is inconsistent with the provision on the accountability of public officials found in Article XI of our Constitution. Moreover, lack of transparency in contracting the loan is a ready-made system for kickbacks. The billions of public funds stolen under the Marcos regime was made possible by the absence of transparency. We could end up with counterparts of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, a white elephant that we paid for over many years without any economic benefits to our country.

* * *

Hermenegildo C. Cruz is a career ambassador who served in the Soviet Union from 1986-1989, during the waning years of Communist Party rule.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/120670/ph-has-walked-into-china-debt-trap#ixzz6Csayy23h

The Philippine people are reprehensibly dense and appallingly irresponsible for not rising up in widespread anger and protest at this abominable violation of our national sovereignty by the Duterte administration.