IMPEACH THE TRAITOR: DUTERTE
IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES
By: Fr.
Joaquin G. Bernas S. J. - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 01:58 AM February 06, 2012
…Grounds
for impeachment are found in the US constitution, in our 1935, 1973 and 1987 constitutions. But there are differences in the
enumerated grounds.
The enumerated grounds for impeachment
common to all of the above constitutions are treason, bribery, high crimes. Only the 1973 and 1987 constitutions
mention graft and corruption. Betrayal of public trust is found only in the
1987 Constitution.
…The only
ground for impeachment added by the 1987 Constitution is “betrayal of public trust.” What does this mean?
The person
responsible for the insertion of this provision said that it includes “betrayal of public interest, inexcusable
negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by
malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc., to the prejudice of
public interest and which tend to bring the office into disrepute.” More
generally, another commissioner said that it could “cover any violation of the oath of office.” However, the committee
responsible for the article on Accountability of Public Officers accepted the
narrower view that betrayal of public trust “implied deliberate intent, perhaps
even a certain degree of perversity, for it is not easy to imagine that
individuals of the category of these [impeachable] officials would go so far as
to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands.” But, again, what it all comes
down to is that since “betrayal of public trust” is enumerated as among an
exclusive class of offenses, it must also be seen as having the same gravity as the other offenses in the
class. In other words, not every violation of public trust is an impeachable
offense.
One
conclusion I would draw from all these, moreover, is that “high crimes” already covers “culpable violation of the Constitution”
and “betrayal of public trust.” As Lawrence Tribe notes, high crimes “will
necessarily involve what is thought to be a serious abuse of official power or
a stark incompatibility between the offense and the offender’s ability
faithfully to execute the duties of his or her office in a manner that will not
endanger the office or the nation.”
The
enumerated impeachable offenses may all be found either in the Penal Code or in
special laws. But treason and bribery committed by impeachable officials are
paradigms of offenses which endanger the nation—treason, because it is a direct
assault on government and the life of the nation, and bribery because it
entails abuse of power and corruption of office. …
CHINA IS
NOT IN POSSESSION OF WPS
By:
Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM August 06, 2020
The July
12, 2016 arbitral Award that invalidated China’s nine-dash line claim to waters
and resources in the South China Sea (SCS) categorically declared that China
never controlled the SCS at any time in history. The Award expressly declared: “The
Tribunal is unable to identify any evidence that would suggest that China
historically regulated or controlled fishing in the South China Sea, beyond the
limits of the territorial sea. xxx With respect to the seabed, the Tribunal
does not see any historical activity that could have been restricted or
controlled, and correspondingly no basis for a historic right.”
President Duterte, however, has repeatedly
declared that China is “in possession” of the West Philippines Sea (WPS). Mr. Duterte first
stated this in a press conference on Nov. 15, 2018, during the Asean-India
Summit in Singapore, that China is “in possession” of the WPS. He repeated this
in his July 22, 2019 State of the Nation Address (Sona), stating that China is “in
possession” of the WPS. Recently, last July 27, 2020, he again repeated this in
his Sona. That China is “in possession” of the WPS has become a mantra of Mr.
Duterte.
The WPS is
a part of the SCS, which is the larger sea. The WPS comprises the territorial
sea, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and extended continental shelf (ECS) of the
Philippines, waters and resources over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
sovereign rights. What are the
ramifications when Mr. Duterte declares that China is “in possession” of
the WPS?
First, Mr. Duterte directly contradicts the
Award which ruled that China never controlled the SCS. To possess a sea like
the WPS means to control that sea. Mr. Duterte is subverting the very basis of
the Award that gave the Philippines a maritime area in the WPS larger than the
total land area of the country.
Second, as
pointed out by UP Prof. Jay Batongbacal, a state cannot possess an EEZ or ECS
because a state only has sovereign rights over the EEZ or ECS, unlike in the
territorial sea where a state exercises sovereignty. For Mr. Duterte to say
that China is “in possession” of Philippine EEZ and ECS in the WPS is to concede to China more rights than what
international law or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) grants to
any state.
Third, the
US, UK, France, Australia, Canada, Japan, and India regularly conduct freedom
of navigation and overflight operations (FONOPs) in the SCS, including in
Philippine EEZ and ECS in the WPS. These FONOPs
forcefully and vividly demonstrate to the world that China is not in possession
of the WPS. These FONOPs, which include naval and aerial drills, are lawful activities under international
law and Unclos, and are therefore peaceful means of asserting the freedoms
of the seas. These FONOPs affirm that there is an EEZ and ECS of the
Philippines in the WPS. In effect, these FONOPs are regular and robust enforcement of the Award.
Fourth, under the international law doctrine of
unilateral declarations, the statements of the President can bind the
Philippines that China is “in possession” of the WPS. China can later on
claim that the Philippines has ceded sovereign rights over its EEZ and ECS to
China. Under this doctrine, unilateral
declarations of heads of state bind the state even if such declarations are
contrary to the Constitution and laws of a state.
What
should Filipinos do now to prevent Mr. Duterte from conceding to China the
Philippine EEZ and ECS in the WPS? The
Department of Foreign Affairs should immediately issue a clarification that
China is in fact not in possession, and legally can never be in possession, of
the WPS. The Senate and the House of Representatives should pass resolutions
declaring that China is not in possession of the WPS.
Finally, the Filipino people should vigorously
show their rejection of Mr. Duterte’s false claim that China is “in possession”
of the WPS.
All professional, civic, social, political, student, and alumni organizations,
and all Filipino citizens, should storm Malacañang with statements and text
messages: China is not, and will never
be, in possession of the WPS. This is the moment for all Filipinos to unite
in defense of Philippine sovereign rights in the WPS.
CHINA IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE, IN
POSSESSION OF THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA.
Duterte commits BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST in
ceding the sovereign rights of the Philippine nation over the West Philippine Sea
to China.
Taksil.
WHY THE
PRESIDENT IS INUTILE ON THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA
By:
Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
05:07 AM August
13, 2020
In his
State of the Nation Address last July 27, President Duterte admitted to the
nation that he is “inutile” in defending Philippine sovereign rights in the
West Philippine Sea (WPS). Duterte declared: “[China is] in possession. So what
can we do? We have to go to war and I can’t afford it. xxx I’m inutile on that
matter, I tell you. And I’m willing to admit it. I cannot do anything.”
Inutile, of course, means useless.
This
“inutile policy” of Mr. Duterte is not new. Mr. Duterte actually declared and
implemented this “inutile policy” barely three months after he assumed office.
Despite promising during the election campaign to jetski to Scarborough Shoal
to plant the Philippine flag and challenge the Chinese soldiers to a shootout,
Mr. Duterte made a sudden about face once he became President.
…What are
the implications of this “inutile policy” of Mr. Duterte? First, this “inutile policy” is a deliberate
refusal to perform a constitutional duty. The Constitution mandates that
“the State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its xxx exclusive
economic zone (EEZ).” The President is the commander in chief of the Armed
Forces that is tasked to defend Philippine sovereignty and sovereign rights.
The President’s “inutile policy” violates this constitutional mandate.
Second,
this “inutile policy” is a deliberate refusal to assert the arbitral Award that
the Philippines won against China. While the Award affirmed that the
Philippines has a full EEZ in the WPS, this “inutile policy” is a clear signal
to China that the Philippines’ EEZ in the WPS is open for the taking of China.
…this
“inutile policy” is a slap on the face of the Filipino people, 90 percent of
whom want the arbitral Award enforced by the Philippine Government. The Filipino
people know that there are many peaceful and non-aggressive means, fully
compliant with international law, in enforcing the Award without going to war
with China. We all know that our own Constitution and the UN Charter prohibit
resorting to war to enforce the Award. War is not an option and has never been
an option.
…Where is this “inutile policy” of Mr. Duterte
coming from?
…Mr. Duterte enthused: “I simply love President Xi Jinping.” From the inner
recesses of his mind, Mr. Duterte revealed that China is his protector when President Xi told him: “We will not allow
you to be taken out from your office.” This explains Mr. Duterte’s “inutile
policy.”
acarpio@inquirer.com.ph
Photo courtesy of Patrick Roque
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elections_2016_-_rodrigo_duterte_marikina_april_2016.jpeg
Gonzalinho
Pope’s Monthly Prayer Intentions
ReplyDeleteApostleship of Prayer
April 2021
Fundamental rights
We pray for those who risk their lives while fighting for fundamental rights under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and even in democracies in crisis.
Link: http://popesprayerusa.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/INTENZIONI-DEL-PAPA-2021-ENG-DEF.pdf
Gonzalinho
CHINA’S OTHER FALSE CLAIMS IN THE SCS
ReplyDeleteBy: Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:06 AM October 01, 2020
China’s nine-dash line historical claim to 85.7 percent of the South China Sea has been exposed as the fake history of the millennium. An arbitral tribunal formed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) has ruled with finality that China’s claim has no basis in fact and in law. However, China and its propagandists have also invoked other falsities to claim the islands enclosed by its nine-dash line.
First, China and its propagandists claim that the Cairo Declaration of Nov. 27, 1943 awarded the Spratlys and the Paracels to China. The Cairo Declaration was the official statement resulting from the Cairo Conference among US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Chinese President Chiang Kai-Shek. One of the purposes of the conference was to strip Japan of the territories it illegally seized from other countries in the last two world wars.
The Cairo Declaration, however, never awarded the Spratlys and the Paracels to China. The Cairo Declaration stated that “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, including Manchuria, Formosa, shall be restored to the Republic of China.” The Spratlys and the Paracels were not seized or stolen by Japan from China. Japan seized the Paracels from the French and the Spratlys were unoccupied by any state when Japan established a submarine base in Itu Aba in 1939. In fact, in the 1943 China Handbook, an official publication of the Republic of China delineating China’s territory, China did not claim the Spratlys. The Cairo Declaration stated that “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” The Spratlys and the Paracels fall under these “all other territories,” which were not awarded to any state in the Cairo Declaration.
Second, China and its propagandists claim that the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, issued by US President Harry Truman, UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Chinese President Chiang Kai-Shek, awarded the Paracels and the Spratlys to China. However, the Potsdam Declaration merely reiterated the Cairo Declaration. The Potsdam Declaration stated that the “terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we shall determine.” The Spratlys and the Paracels were not awarded to China.
To be continued
CHINA’S OTHER FALSE CLAIMS IN THE SCS
ReplyDeleteBy: Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:06 AM October 01, 2020
Continued
Third, China and its propagandists claim that the San Francisco Peace Conference of 1951 awarded the Spratlys and the Paracels to China. Nothing could be farther from the truth. China, under the People’s Republic of China ruled by the Communists, denounced the 1951 San Francisco Peace Teary as illegal since China was not represented at the Peace Conference. The USSR’s motion to award the Spratlys and the Paracels to China was overwhelmingly rejected by the Peace Conference by a vote of 64 to 3, with one abstention. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty rejected the award of the Spratlys and the Paracels to China.
Finally, China and its propagandists claim that since the US has its 1823 Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, China should also have its nine-dash line doctrine in the South China Sea. This claim is as ingenious as it is specious. Under the Monroe Doctrine, the US never claimed any territory of countries in Central or South America. Neither did the US claim any maritime area or resources in the Caribbean Sea beyond the then three-nautical-mile territorial sea recognized under international law. Even up to now, the US is not claiming any maritime area or resources beyond what Unclos allows as the US, unlike China, fully respects the exclusive economic zones of Central and South American countries.
The Monroe Doctrine forbade the European imperialist powers from reestablishing their colonies in Central and South America. China’s nine-dash line seizes the island territories and maritime zones of Asean coastal states as well as the high seas of the South China Sea, establishing China as the imperialist superpower in the region. The day that China’s former Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping has warned the world about in 1974—that should China become an imperialist superpower bullying and exploiting weaker states, then the world should unite to overthrow the Chinese government—has dawned on us.
acarpio@inquirer.com.ph
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/134067/chinas-other-false-claims-in-the-scs#ixzz7122btIqa
Fake news is one of the most effective and critical tools of totalitarian states. As an instrument of totalitarian propaganda and deception, they are not limited to influencing the captive local population but their scope extends as well worldwide for imperialist purposes.
Gonzalinho