The Senate resolution condemning China for its “continued harassment” of Filipino fishermen and “incursions” into Philippine waters in the contested China Sea, and urging the government to raise the issue of Beijing’s intrusive actions before the United Nations General Assembly as being violative of the 2016 arbitral ruling in favor of the Philippines, was passed unanimously last Tuesday.
The Senate resolution is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
Unnecessary because most, if not all, of the members of the Senate, have on various occasions and platforms expressed individually each position on the matter. Each senator has expressed his/her opposition and condemnation of China’s continued coercive actions against our fisher folks and coast guards. Every one of them at one time or another made his/her assertion of the Philippines’ sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Each of them has expressed outrage at China’s refusal to honor the Permanent Arbitration Court’s decision nullifying China’s expansive claims and validating the country’s sovereign rights over its exclusive economic zone or EEZ and continental shelf.
Since their individual positions on the matter of China’s coast guards and militia bullying our fishermen and coast guards in the country’s waters have been made known, why do they have to make a resolution expressing their sense as a body? It’s an act of redundancy.
Inappropriate, for the reason that the President of the Philippines has invariably declared at different times his unequivocal assertion of the country’s independence and enforcement of the arbitral award, as well as filed diplomatic protests, against the unlawful and unwelcome intrusions by China in the West Philippine Sea and therefore being the Chief Architect of foreign policy, it behooves the members of the Senate to respect it — and not to intrude into the former’s domain.
The senators must remember that the Constitution has allocated — and demarcated — the functions and duties of the three branches of government. The executive branch enforces the law, the legislative branch passes laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws and imposes penalties for those violating them, and rules on conflicting claims.
The President is the Head of State, and the head of government is composed of the aforesaid three branches. When the President speaks officially on matters of national security and national interest, and makes a pronouncement on a particular policy, in this particular case vis-a-vis the disputed waters in the South China Sea, the two branches cannot go against it, nor undermine it, by issuing contradicting statements or making it appear that it is wanting and ineffective, unless the presidential pronouncement is blatantly and evidently in violation of the Constitution.
President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.’s stand on China’s intrusions into Philippine waters is correct. He said his presidency will not surrender any square inch of the Philippine territory. It will continue to assert its sovereignty and will pursue the enforcement of the arbitral ruling even as it continuously protests Beijing’s intrusions.
There is no need therefore for the legislative branch to make a separate position apart from the President’s. It cannot also dictate or teach the President in the matter of ways to enforce the ruling like bringing it to the attention of the United Nations, as if the latter is unaware of it.
They forget that two Presidents, former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., have already addressed the general assembly of the United Nations articulating, among others, the country’s affirmation of its independence and sovereignty and invocation of the validity and immutability of the arbitral award.
The United Nations and the rest of the world know the conflict involving China and the Philippines. Many countries, like the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union, have already expressed support for the Philippines’ stand.
The Senate resolution, wittingly or intentionally, makes it appear that the President’s position is weak, or his defense of our sovereignty is insufficient, hence they need to goad him to do better or embarrass him when the truth is — the said resolution makes for an impertinent and insulting narrative.
If they could not yield to the temptation of a public outcry, and they feel the need to unleash their sentiments for the President to hear them, with the sincere intention of helping him, why didn’t they write him instead or whisper to him in confidence?
Why do they have to upstage him?