From InterAksyon (Apr 20): Without PH Senate vote, pact on US rotational presence violates Charter - Miriam
Unless concurred in by a 2/3 vote of the Philippine Senate, the proposed agreement covering the increased rotational presence of US troops in the country – believed being rushed in time for President Barack Obama’s visit - will violate the Constitution, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said on Sunday.
Santiago, a constitutional and international law expert, said the affairs of the State should not be regarded like a gift to foreign leaders, stressing the supposed agreement is a very important matter in the country’s foreign relations.
“We should stop first our superstitious mentality na itong mga bisita dapat pakitaan ng magandang ugali, hindi ito kapareho, ibang level ito,” Santiago said in a radio interview over DzBB.
Malacanang last week had debunked speculations that the so-called AEDC (Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation) is being rushed in time for the arrival of Mr. Obama on April 28. His Manila trip is part of a swing through four Asian countries – Japan, Malaysia, Korea and the Philippines – and was characterized as one meant to signal America’s seriousness in its pivot to Asia, where maritime rows in the East and South China Seas involve some of its key treaty allies.
Santiago said Obama’s visit to Asia is apparently meant to enlist certain strategic countries to be part of the US defense strategy when China makes a move in Asia.
“Kaya ang una nyang pinuntahan ay Japan. Pagkatapos nyan, pupuntahan nya ang Sokor, Malaysia, tapos Philippines. Pero kausap din nya allies kaya antimano, NZ and Australia. Ang gusto nyang mangyari ay ayaw niyang i-provoke ang China [That’s why he will visit Japan first; then, South Korea, Malaysia, then the Philippines. But at the outset he is also talking to New Zealand and Australia. What he wants is to avoid provoking China],” Santiago said.
She conceded that it’s a sound strategy because of the risk of the simmering conflicts turning “into a shooting war.” That is why, she said, Obama is “saying nothing that could provoke China,” which in recent months has been engaged in a word war and in cat-and-mouse games of its patrol vessels with Japan and the Philippines in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, respectively. The US has treaties with both countries, vowing to come to their defense in case of an attack.
In all the recent incidents, all that Mr. Obama is saying, noted Santiago, is that “we will defend our allies according to our existing agreement.”
“Tell Obama it’s unconstitutional”
Santiago said the American ambassador to the Philippines should tell Mr. Obama that the agreement to increase US rotational presence in the country will violate the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
“Now, I hope, the American ambassador will tell Mr. Obama that we Filipinos are very rules-conscious. We always insist on what the law says,” Santiago explained, speaking mostly in Filipino.
Santiago said the Constitution explicitly bans the establishment of foreign bases and facilities, including foreign troops, on Philippine soil except under a treaty duly approved by a 2/3 vote of the members of the Philippine Senate.
“And it is clear the Constitution does not allow what they want – to allow increased US troops in our country. Not because I don’t want it, or because others don’t want it, but simply because the Charter clearly states: foreign military bases, foreign military troops or foreign military facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly approved by the Senate,” she said.
So, she said, the increased rotational presence, even if America will not establish foreign bases in the country, still violates the Constitution.
Party-list lawmakers last week had warned that the proposed accord would be "worse" than the US-Philippines bases treaty that ended in 1992, because it is not covered by a treaty, nor rentals, and has no limits.
No executive agreement allowed in Charter
There is likewise no mention in the Constitution that the government can enter into an executive agreement allowing foreign troops to be stationed in the country in furtherance of the existing Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), according to Santiago.
She said any international agreement entered into by the government should be concurred in by the Senate as explicitly stated in the Constitution.
“There’s no provision there allowing an executive agreement; where did they get that? There’s no phrase that says ‘except under a treaty concurred in by the Senate and all other agreements subsequent to the treaty.’ Why do they insist on using a language that is not in the Constitution?”
No matter how it’s called, any international agreement shall not pass if it is not concurred in by the Senate, she stressed, adding, “that’s their problem here.”
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/85103/without-ph-senate-vote-pact-on-us-rotational-presence-violates-charter---miriam
Unless concurred in by a 2/3 vote of the Philippine Senate, the proposed agreement covering the increased rotational presence of US troops in the country – believed being rushed in time for President Barack Obama’s visit - will violate the Constitution, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said on Sunday.
Santiago, a constitutional and international law expert, said the affairs of the State should not be regarded like a gift to foreign leaders, stressing the supposed agreement is a very important matter in the country’s foreign relations.
“We should stop first our superstitious mentality na itong mga bisita dapat pakitaan ng magandang ugali, hindi ito kapareho, ibang level ito,” Santiago said in a radio interview over DzBB.
Malacanang last week had debunked speculations that the so-called AEDC (Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation) is being rushed in time for the arrival of Mr. Obama on April 28. His Manila trip is part of a swing through four Asian countries – Japan, Malaysia, Korea and the Philippines – and was characterized as one meant to signal America’s seriousness in its pivot to Asia, where maritime rows in the East and South China Seas involve some of its key treaty allies.
Santiago said Obama’s visit to Asia is apparently meant to enlist certain strategic countries to be part of the US defense strategy when China makes a move in Asia.
“Kaya ang una nyang pinuntahan ay Japan. Pagkatapos nyan, pupuntahan nya ang Sokor, Malaysia, tapos Philippines. Pero kausap din nya allies kaya antimano, NZ and Australia. Ang gusto nyang mangyari ay ayaw niyang i-provoke ang China [That’s why he will visit Japan first; then, South Korea, Malaysia, then the Philippines. But at the outset he is also talking to New Zealand and Australia. What he wants is to avoid provoking China],” Santiago said.
She conceded that it’s a sound strategy because of the risk of the simmering conflicts turning “into a shooting war.” That is why, she said, Obama is “saying nothing that could provoke China,” which in recent months has been engaged in a word war and in cat-and-mouse games of its patrol vessels with Japan and the Philippines in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, respectively. The US has treaties with both countries, vowing to come to their defense in case of an attack.
In all the recent incidents, all that Mr. Obama is saying, noted Santiago, is that “we will defend our allies according to our existing agreement.”
“Tell Obama it’s unconstitutional”
Santiago said the American ambassador to the Philippines should tell Mr. Obama that the agreement to increase US rotational presence in the country will violate the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
“Now, I hope, the American ambassador will tell Mr. Obama that we Filipinos are very rules-conscious. We always insist on what the law says,” Santiago explained, speaking mostly in Filipino.
Santiago said the Constitution explicitly bans the establishment of foreign bases and facilities, including foreign troops, on Philippine soil except under a treaty duly approved by a 2/3 vote of the members of the Philippine Senate.
“And it is clear the Constitution does not allow what they want – to allow increased US troops in our country. Not because I don’t want it, or because others don’t want it, but simply because the Charter clearly states: foreign military bases, foreign military troops or foreign military facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly approved by the Senate,” she said.
So, she said, the increased rotational presence, even if America will not establish foreign bases in the country, still violates the Constitution.
Party-list lawmakers last week had warned that the proposed accord would be "worse" than the US-Philippines bases treaty that ended in 1992, because it is not covered by a treaty, nor rentals, and has no limits.
No executive agreement allowed in Charter
There is likewise no mention in the Constitution that the government can enter into an executive agreement allowing foreign troops to be stationed in the country in furtherance of the existing Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), according to Santiago.
She said any international agreement entered into by the government should be concurred in by the Senate as explicitly stated in the Constitution.
“There’s no provision there allowing an executive agreement; where did they get that? There’s no phrase that says ‘except under a treaty concurred in by the Senate and all other agreements subsequent to the treaty.’ Why do they insist on using a language that is not in the Constitution?”
No matter how it’s called, any international agreement shall not pass if it is not concurred in by the Senate, she stressed, adding, “that’s their problem here.”
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/85103/without-ph-senate-vote-pact-on-us-rotational-presence-violates-charter---miriam