Looking bad

As if allegations of being the mentor to the pork barrel queen are not enough to make him look bad, news of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad’s total number of 11 family members in government can’t even budge him from his enviable position of the President’s closest and most trusted ally. Now, if you’re counting, that’s about four times the sound of bad resonated in one full sentence.

 

Janet Napoles, the alleged pork barrel queen, has accused Mr. Abad as the one who taught her how to divert funds from the pork barrel allocated to members of Congress. Benhur Luy, the other whistleblower, also implicated Mr. Abad although the latter’s name was erased from his list.

 

But no matter how loud the protestations are, President Aquino appears impervious and obdurate in his belief that there is no probable cause his most trusted cabinet secretary had committed a crime. Even if the whistleblowers Janet Napoles and Benhur Luy also pointed to Mr. Abad’s direct involvement in the 10-billion-peso pork barrel scandal, similar to the allegations that form the basis of the charges against Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla Jr. The Philippine system of justice looks not just laughable but just as bad and as duplicitous as the moral standards that dictate the President’s convenient set of values.

Three's not a crowd. Senator Bong Revilla hugs Minority Leader Juan Ponce
Enrile and Senator Jinggoy Estrada, his co-respondents in the plunder case
filed by the government. SENATE PHOTO.

“There seems to be a selective justice. We are all aware there are many people involved and yet only three are charged,” according to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the official organization of all Philippine lawyers, as it questioned the government’s selective indictment of people linked to the pork barrel scam.

 

If we are to use the allegations of both Napoles and Luy to indict and eventually convict the three senators, shouldn’t Mr. Abad be judged on the same accusation? Why prosecute the three senators but show mercy to Mr. Abad? After all, the allegations have yet to be proved in court and it should be the same principle of presumption of innocence that must be applied to all, including Mr. Abad and all the President’s allies implicated in the scandal. Not presuming Mr. Abad’s innocence and pronouncing the guilt of the others accused because they happen to be outside the President’s circle.

 

Convict the three senators if you will, but don’t spare Mr. Abad because he is the President’s most trusted ally.

 

In shielding Mr. Abad from prosecution, President Aquino is showing he has no “delicadeza” and shame. The President is fiddling with the detrimental side of politics and favouritism. The same can be said about Mr. Abad’s proliferation of his kin in government.

 

According to news reports, there are 11 relatives of Mr. Abad currently holding positions in the government, which include his wife Henedina, currently a representative in Congress for the province of Batanes and vice chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee; daughter Julia, head of the Presidential Management Staff; son Luis, chief of staff of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, as well as four nephews, one niece, and two first cousins occupying various government posts. By all appearances, this is nepotism on a grand scale. It is as if the Abad family now owns a large portion of the government, like it is their own plantation or fiefdom.  

Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and President Benigno Aquino III.

This type of nepotism in public service, however, is not really unusual. The alignment of politics in all levels of government in the Philippines, whether for elective or appointive officials, depends on kinship and family ties. Hence, why we will always have political dynasties that dominate the political landscape. The same favouritism or influence is also wielded by CEOs or top executives in the private sector in the appointments of their children in high positions in the corporate structure.

 

A social science research conducted in the United States, which was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, revealed that rich people exhibit narcissistic tendencies and higher levels of entitlement among those of the higher income and social class. The study found a sense of entitlement for children of the rich that they could go through life without feeling guilty about having rich parents and being born with certain environmental advantages.

 

When the respondents were asked to depict themselves as circles, with size indicating relative importance, richer people chose larger circles for themselves and smaller ones for others. Another experiment found that they also looked in the mirror more frequently. The study suggested that wealth may breed narcissistic tendencies—and wealthy people justify their excess by convincing themselves that they are more deserving of it.

 

According to the study, the rich get jobs through family connections. After going to whatever elite university their parents attended, getting a job at whatever firm their parents worked at seems only natural. The culture of hiring in Wall Street, for example, confirms this observation that direct nepotism in the hiring process is prevalent in the hiring of children of rich people by giant financial firms.

 

Nepotism to some extent is probably tolerable in privately-owned corporations since the owners would rather put their trust on their children and close relatives. However, it is generally frowned upon in the public service for it shows an appearance of unfairness when it comes to hiring or appointing relatives in government.

 

Who’s to blame if Mr. Abad has 11 relatives in government? Perhaps, he is more than qualified to be the Budget Secretary, a position that demands the President’s unflinching loyalty and trust. His wife cannot also be pigeon-holed in a group who succeeds in politics because of family connections because she was elected by her constituents. She succeeded Mr. Abad in Congress. Of course, marriage to Mr. Abad also helps her secure the powerful position of vice-chair of the House Appropriations Committee. Their children, Julia and Luis, both occupy high and significant positions in the government’s bureaucracy because of their familial links to Mr. Abad which are their strongest assets, notwithstanding their professional wherewithal to perform the rigorous demands of their jobs.

 

But having so many relatives in government can perpetuate a deeply unjust social order. We have seen in the past how the cronies of Ferdinand Marcos had strengthened a repressive political regime. Mere appearance of nepotism is bad. The Abad family makes it look worse than bad. If our system is one of aristocracy, then Mr. Abad could be excused for ensuring the appointment of his family members to King Benigno’s court.

 

Yet, President Aquino keeps harping on his “matuwid na daan” as his government’s mantra, that if there is no corrupt, none will be poor. That’s fine if the President will apply the same standard to members of his own cabinet. But it is not fine when he spares one or two in his cabinet on one hand, while he prosecutes three or more who happen to be his political enemies, on the other.  

Indignation rally. Protesters massed outside the Supreme Court while the
justices were deliberating on the legality of the Disbursement Acceleration
Program. Photo by Danny Pata.

Filipinos as a whole are tired and fed up with this government’s hypocritical and phony attitude to the prosecution of corrupt officials in government. Except for the impeachment of the former Supreme Court Chief Justice, and he was not even charged of corruption, President Aquino’s government does not have a track record of success in prosecuting corrupt officials. Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo remains in detention for the crime of plunder even if not one single charge brought against her has been proved before the Sandiganbayan. The question this time is whether the government prosecution would be able to prove the guilt of the three senators? Sandiganbayan has already allowed them bail so it does not augur well for the prosecution at this early stage.

 

In my previous blog, Presumed guilty, I wrote about the current President’s distorted understanding of the presumption of innocence afforded all those accused of committing crimes. To him, only his allies and friends should enjoy the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty by a competent court. Those on the other side of the fence, his political enemies, are meant to be prosecuted and presumed guilty as charged. This is plain double standard in applying the law. That’s why the President is so relentless and persistent in sheltering Mr. Abad and others in the cabinet who have also been implicated in the pork barrel scandal. His hands are not clean and he doesn’t want the people to see them.

 

But the people will not be fooled this time, not even by the yellow media that promotes this government as immaculately clean and beyond refute. There is growing consciousness among the people that corruption and nepotism in government mirror the unjust and unfair concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few elite families.

 

The more this President defends his own allies, the more he looks bad. And the more his vision of a straight path looks crooked. Plus ça change….

Presumed guilty

 

 

Without fully understanding the implications of what he says in public, President Benigno Aquino III is actually supplanting the time-honored principle of presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt. Even worse is his arrogance to ensconce a double standard of morality in politics.

 

On one hand, President Aquino believes Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada are guilty as charged of corruption, plunder and other crimes against the government. All of them are presumed guilty to the eyes of President Aquino, just like most everyone else is led to believe, even if the charges are still in the process of being filed before the Sandiganbayan.

 

On the other hand, people like the President’s Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala, and Technical Educational and Skills Development Authority director general Joel Villanueva who were also named in the list of those involved in the pork barrel scandal are innocent to his eyes. To the President, his cabinet men are on a different plane and should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law.

 

Members of the Kilusang Mayo Uno wear masks depicting President Benigno
Aquino, Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, lawyer Lorna Kapunan, and
(on wheelchair) alleged pork barrel queen Janet Lim-Napoles during a rally in
Mendiola. The rallyists called for an end to the preferential treatment being
accorded Napoles. Photo by Alexis Corpuz.

Curiously, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo continues to be detained even if none of the charges laid against her have not been proven by the state. Because President Aquino and the public in general are all convinced that Arroyo is guilty by any stretch of imagination.

 

This is the new normal under President Aquino’s administration. Allies and friends are presumed innocent while political enemies are presumed guilty.

 

However, the bastardization of the presumption of innocence under the Aquino presidency is not without its merits. After all, the reality is that no defendant would face trial unless it is believed there is probable cause that the defendant was guilty of a crime. They wouldn’t have prosecuted the accused if he or she weren’t guilty of something, which is the common supposition before the court. For instance, outside of the formal investigation process, there is widespread public knowledge, thanks to media scrutiny and vigilance, that those involved in the pork barrel scandal are factually guilty even though a trial has not been set for them to face the charges.

 

The only problem with this presumption of guilt is it could apply to all accused of corruption in government. Guilt is a very wide net that can catch everyone in the government, whether by suspicion or mere inference, and regardless of rank or pay grade. That said, even President Aquino is not immune from a presumption of guilt for he could be as culpable as any of his cabinet staff or his dreaded political enemies.



President Noynoy Aquino with one of his most trusted men in cabinet, Budget
 Secretary Florencio Abad. Could Aquino be talking about Abad's innocence?

But as an alternative to a presumption of innocence, a presumption of guilt is inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. Thus, the presumption of innocence is not just symbolic but essential to the criminal process.

 

What does the presumption of innocence mean?

 

The presumption of innocence is a vital part of our criminal law system. It means that the accused doesn’t have to prove he or she is innocent. Instead, the job falls on the prosecutor or the state to prove the accused guilty. In other words, unless the accused has been proved to have committed the crime, he or she is entitled to be acquitted or found “not guilty.”

 

The underlying purpose of this presumption is to protect the rights of individuals when the state accuses them of a crime. It is often said that it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent be convicted.

 

But the judicial system is not without controversy. Some see the system as being stacked in favour of the accused, rather than protecting their rights. And despite all of the protection in the system, miscarriages of justice still happen where innocent people are convicted. Those in positions of power are generally perceived as more likely than those outside this circle to exercise warped judgment, transforming the criminal justice system into an instrument to protect themselves and their exercise of power.

 

President Aquino’s exhortation, therefore, that his cabinet secretaries should be presumed innocent rather than guilty as he has characterized the actions of his political enemies, is clearly aimed in protecting and preserving the incorruptibility of his government. In short, he is ignoring the true purpose of the presumption of innocence while affirming that many of those accused or alleged to have been involved in the pork barrel scandal are presumed guilty just because they happen to be his political enemies.

 

Civil society, however, is under no obligation to refrain from criticism of government officials based on a blatant misunderstanding of presumption of innocence. This is particularly relevant in the current situation in which the public is being fed with too much conflicting information about government corruption.

 

There are many incompatible lists of individuals implicated in the scandal and inconsistent testimonies between the alleged mastermind or potential state witness and whistleblowers who could be motivated by personal or vested interests. The executive and legislative branches of government seem to be at a loss on how to proceed with their respective investigations.

 

Spokespersons for the President appear to offer differing statements on behalf of the administration. The Ombudsman has left for a trip abroad without filing the charges against the three aforementioned senators before the Sandiganbayan. Even half-brothers elected to the Senate are at odds with each other as to the possible fallout of the scandal on their own political careers prompting their father, a disgraced former president for acts of plunder, to intervene.

Could there be any connection between President Aquino and the alleged pork barrel
queen, Janet Napoles, here in a photo taken in 2012?

It’s a political circus which the pork barrel scandal has created, muddling the fundamental issue of corruption in government, which appears lost in the crucial examination because the personalities and characters involved have become more important rather than their own sins and omissions.

 

In the end, either President Aquino should presume all are innocent before trial or all are presumed guilty. Not where others have more legal rights and therefore presumed innocent. The better approach it seems is to take heed of President Aquino’s presumption of guilt for those implicated in the scandal, but it should include his own men if he wants to appear fair and just.

 

Let’s throw the presumption of innocence off the bus and declare everyone guilty, and let them prove their innocence. It makes more sense to reverse the burden of proof and let it fall on the accused, especially for those in the public service. Every time that public trust is breached, people are deceived.

 

Indulging a presumption of innocence before a finding of guilt is too much of an accommodation to give. Besides, this demand for a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court is both cunning and deceitful when the President of the country uses it to excuse the culpability of his own cabinet.

 

It is no doubt cold comfort for President Aquino to subscribe to a generous interpretation of the presumption of innocence that applies only to his allies and friends. This interpretation would not comport with the supposed persistence of a foundational legal principle, especially when stretched outside its province.

 

Furthermore, this is like expecting a lot or dreaming about the impossible from a failed system where corruption is widespread and so pervasive. No wonder that the Philippines consistently belongs in the exclusive list of “failed states,” in the dishonourable company of other countries who have miserably and ineffectually failed to solve corruption in government.

Swindlers’ list

 

 

Everybody knows a swindler, a dishonest person who cheats by very clever means in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages through pretense or deception.

 

The swindler is a bilk, bilker, cheat, cheater, defrauder, dodger, fakir, finagler, fraudster, hoaxer, phony, plotter, rascal, rogue, scammer, scamster, schemer, skinner, tricker, and a wheeler-dealer.

 

Janet Napoles, the pork barrel queen, is any of the above even if she’s not been convicted by a court of law, and this is not depriving her of the presumption of innocence. Her hands are all over the place, either that she is the mastermind or simply the marionette of a higher brain trust. The pork barrel mess she has created points to her culpability, and whether she brings down with her the entire government or some high-ranking politicians is an ending that needs to be scripted.

 

That’s why we begin with a list, a list of swindlers. Not just one list, but two or more or even several more. This is how to create a feeling of suspense and make the public wonder how the story will reach a climactic twist to the denouement to all this mess.

Copy of the signed Napoles' List.

Janet Napoles has her own list of politicians and government officials involved in the P10-billion defrauding of the people’s money. Benhur Luy, former assistant to Mrs. Napoles and whistleblower has a list, too. But they are different lists, in that they contain different names. Then there’s another Napoles’ list in the hands of former Senator Panfilo Lacson, albeit with an unsigned affidavit and was given to him by Mrs. Napoles’ husband, a former colleague of Mr. Lacson in the military. President Benigno Aquino III, the tireless graft and corruption crusader, has seen three lists according to him. Because he wasn’t aware of the legal ramifications of the lists, again according to him, he referred them to Leila de Lima, his Secretary of Justice and legal staff to sort out.

 

But Secretary de Lima seems embattled with a Hamlet-like dilemma. To show or not to show the true and genuine Napoles’ list. Meantime, Mr. Lacson has surrendered to the Senate his copy of the unsigned affidavit from Mrs. Napoles containing the list of all those involved in the pork barrel mess. All those mentioned in the list were up in arms, denying involvement and declaring their innocence. See how the entire drama is unfolding, great script but boring because the people already know what is going to happen in the end.

 

Secretary de Lima insists that the Napoles’ list is still a work in progress. Meaning, the list is still being sanitized which the secretary vehemently denies. Speculations are rife that there are people who shouldn’t be on the list, the ones (Aquino’s partymates and supporters in Congress) who are friendly with the President, and those within his inner sanctum (like his trusted Budget Secretary Florencio Abad) who are implicated and could bring down the government and make the President’s graft and corruption agenda look a total sham.

 

Sanitizing the Napoles’ list will clear up any inference or allegation of involvement by the current administration in the pork barrel scandal. Thus, it is very important for President Aquino and his cabinet, following the “clean hands” doctrine in law, to show they cannot be accused of unfair conduct and that they have not done anything wrong. But in sanitizing the list, the administration could be accused of partiality by going only after those who are not friendly with the government and leaving friends and loyal supporters of the Aquino administration fully unscathed.

 

It is therefore a brilliant strategy to concoct more than one list. Without a doubt, whoever thought of the grand idea of circulating more than one list was a great thinker. Alternative lists will muddle the issue, thus benefiting those who swindled the government, protect the conspirators in the scandal, and keep justice in the dark. Debating and determining which list is genuine will take an inordinate amount of time and before the dust settles, a new election is held and the whole mess becomes either forgotten or is buried from the front pages of newspapers to some page nobody even bothers to read.

Copy of the unsigned Lacson's Napoles List

At the end of day, the public will simply throw its hands up and accept a government list naming the three most popular and dispensable among those involved. We already have their names a long time ago: Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla Jr. and Jinggoy Estrada. Indicting these three top senators will be a great achievement for President Aquino, a feather in his cap, not to mention the continuing detention of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the impeachment of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. All things considered, it will be a testament to the persistence of the Aquino administration in prosecuting those responsible for graft and corruption in government. All accusations of non-transparency, unfairness and injustice will just be distant memories of how this government dispenses with justice when everything about the pork barrel dissipates in the air.

 

Remember too that Congress faces two very important issues which can spell trouble for President Aquino. He doesn’t have any more pork barrel to distribute to solidify support in Congress for the Bangsamoro Law and the Enforced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). PDAF has been abolished. But President Aquino could finagle the Swindlers’ List among members of Congress and let those who defy his wishes be included. In other words, the President could easily subvert the ends of justice to accomplish his aims, and this is not a healthy sign of democracy.

 

This is why the Philippines remains included in the list of countries (talking about another relevant list) considered “failed states” in the Failed States Index 2013 of Foreign Policy prepared by the United States think-tank Fund for Peace. One of the several attributes of a failed state is widespread corruption, a perpetual sordid state of affairs the Philippines has never figured out to resolve since time immemorial.

 

There are more pressing issues which the present government must address but the current controversy about which pork barrel list is genuine takes much of the administration’s time and attention. High on this list are issues such as bringing back to millions of workers the dignity of regular employment with its attendant living wage, union rights and benefits like maternity leave and health insurance, and putting an end to contractualization of labour which makes Filipino workers as “permanent contractuals” or non-regular employees.

 

Despite claims by the Aquino government of speedy relief and assistance to victims and survivors of last year’s Typhoon Haiyan, their situation is far from being close to recovery. The typhoon survivors continue to live in tents. They still suffer from hunger and there is no meaningful program by the government to help them reconstruct their livelihood.

 

Last May 9, public school teachers stormed Malacañang demanding an increase in their salaries. But the Aquino government released a statement that there will be no salary increase for government workers due to lack of funds. Apparently, because a lot of government money has been wasted for ghost, anomalous and corrupt projects through the Priority Development Assistance Fund, Presidential Social Fund and other lump sum allocations.

 

If only the Aquino government could be serious enough and pay attention to a list of priorities for improving the life of the masses, instead of dilly-dallying in releasing the true Napoles’ list of swindlers, then everyday life for the common folks will be less burdensome. But the government seems not interested in the greater good of the majority of the Filipino people. The Napoles’ list and its different versions have consumed the government to no end.

 

While the entire nation already knows how this messy scandal will unravel, the incumbent government of President Benigno Aquino III continues to exploit this controversy about a list to the fullest extent. As a result, the people will be no better off than they were before when this charade finally ends.

Deception and containment

 

 

“The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. Lines of navigation from our ports to the Orient and Australia; from the Isthmian Canal to Asia; from all Oriental ports to Australia, converge at and separate from the Philippines. They are a self-supporting, dividend-paying fleet, permanently anchored at a spot selected by the strategy of Providence commanding the Pacific. And the Pacific is the ocean of commerce of the future. Most future wars will be conflicts for commerce. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. And, with the Philippines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic.”

—U.S. Senator Alfred J. Beveridge, January 9, 1901

Map of Asia Pacific

 

America officially denies that the latest military agreement with the Philippines, inelegantly called the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), aims to contain the rise of China as a superpower. U.S. President Barack Obama made this clear when asked if the U.S. military will defend the Philippines should territorial disputes with China escalate.

 

Obama said, “Our goal is not to counter China; our goal is not to contain China. Our goal is to make sure that international rules and norms are respected, and that includes the area of maritime disputes.”

 

Before the end of his duty, former U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, Harry Thomas, Jr., made a similar declaration a year ago. “We’re here (in the Philippines) with JSOTF-P, our joint special operations task force, temporarily to eliminate terrorism, not to stage bases. We don’t want a conflict with China,” Thomas said.

 

This is the official line (or lie) by the U.S. government. The truth, however, is obvious and cannot be cloaked by any more pronouncements to the contrary by U.S. officials. There is no denying that it’s all about containing China. The U.S. rebalance of its military forces or pivot to Asia is clearly aimed toward containment of the second largest economy of the world to prevent its ascent to the level of America’s superpower. India might as well be an additional target of U.S. containment since it has recently displaced Japan as the third largest economy in the world, and it could well be another spectre looming with its nuclear capability.

 

American deception is so patently repugnant. Yet, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III and the rest of his officialdom and high-ranking generals are all too willing to turn a blind eye and swallow EDCA hook, line and sinker.

The Philippines and the Unites States sign 10-year defence agreement (Tribune cartoon).  Click link http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-philippines-to-sign-10-year-defense-agreement-amid-rising-tensions/2014/04/27/a04436c0-cddf-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html to read newsreport.

In the short term, EDCA will probably provide the much-needed buffer to China’s aggressiveness and bullying in the South China Sea. But this is a short-sighted objective. Over the long term, the country’s defence and military capability would just be as diminished as it was when the U.S. operated military bases in the country from 1947 to 1992. The Philippine military never modernized on account of the U.S. bases or their use by American troops for forward deployment during the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and whether this will be achieved under EDCA is also unlikely.

 

Containment was articulated by American diplomat George F. Kennan at the start of the Cold War as a means of preventing the spread of communism around the world, particularly in response to the expansion of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, China, Korea, Africa and Vietnam. It spurred the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a mutual defence pact between the United States and its European allies. The U.S. similarly entered into mutual defence treaties with Japan, Korea and the Philippines. The same containment strategy is now being put in motion by the U.S. and its European allies against Russian expansion in the Ukraine after Crimea voted to join the Russian federation.

 

Communism did not spread the way it was predicted by the advocates of containment, i.e., through Moscow and beyond. Communist movements in other countries were largely inspired by internal civil wars and nationalist struggles for self-determination. When the Soviet Union was disbanded in the 1990s, the Cold War fizzled out making the United States the last and only superpower standing.

 

The United States lost its military bases in the Philippines in 1992, coincidentally during the end of the Cold War. American troops returned in 1998 under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) to combat a new war: the war on terror. Communist rebels and separatist insurgents in the Philippines had been blacklisted by the U.S. State Department as terrorist organizations, especially Abu Sayaff who were operating in Jolo and Basilan in the south. The VFA gave the Americans legal cover to join the government’s drive against the insurgents and joint military exercises on a perpetual rotation basis. The military exercises have enabled the U.S. troops to become more prepared and better trained as they learned from the more experienced Filipino soldiers who have been fighting jungle and guerilla warfare for over 45 years.

 

But as early as 2001, military strategists in the U.S. government have already been itching to re-establish the bases in the Philippines. They needed to create a more permanent base for the forward deployment of troops to counter the surging Chinese economy and expansion of its military capability. China needed to be contained, not the spread of its communist ideology, but its sphere of influence in Asia. Communism is no longer the main enemy of containment as it was during the Cold War, but the hegemonic rise of economically powerful countries like China and India, and to some extent, Russia, even with its not-so-strong economy which the U.S. and NATO can effectively harass with sanctions.

 

After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, a steady stream of American troops has been arriving in the Philippines for regular and recurring military exercises. The Philippine government has allowed the U.S. to fly over the country’s air space, use its airfields and ports and travel on its sea lanes.

 

In November 2002, the U.S. and the Philippines entered into a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) allowing the U.S. to store and pre-position equipment in the country, construct structures and be provided with the full range of logistics and operational services it requires. Some American troops in rotation have also based themselves indefinitely in Southern Mindanao. In 2006, the U.S. and the Philippines signed another agreement establishing a Security Engagement Board (SEB), thus expanding the role of U.S. troops in the country. Then in 2007, a Status of Visiting Forces Agreement (SOVFA), giving similar legal privileges given to U.S. troops by the VFA, was signed with another U.S. ally, Australia, which in the past few years has also begun to be involved in military operations in the Philippines.

 

Between 2002 and 2006, the U.S. had been providing an average of $54 million per year in military aid to the Philippine government, up from $1.6 million annually in the period after the closure of the bases and before the signing of the VFA. Incrementally but steadily, the United States has been re-establishing the presence of its troops in the country and reinforcing its relationship with the Philippines.

 

US guided missile cruiser leads destroyers during military exercise in the Pacific
Ocean (AFP Photo/Toshifumi Kitamura)

In “At the Door of All the East: The Philippines in United States Military Strategy,” a report prepared for Focus on the Global South, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI) by Herbert Docena in November 2007, the author argued that the VFA and subsequent agreements between the U.S. and the Philippines were not adopted for the singular purpose of fighting the war on terror. According to the report, the re-establishment of American troops on Philippine soil has always been a component of the larger U.S. strategy to preserve its permanent global superiority by preventing the rise of rivals like China and maintain itself as the world’s sole superpower.

 

Docena further wrote that in order “to deter and defeat potential enemies or rivals anywhere in the world,” the United States must have the capacity “to operate across the globe through its worldwide network of forward-deployed troops, bases, and access agreements.”

 

The report also argued that of all the potential rivals of the U.S., “China poses the greatest threat and must therefore be contained before it becomes even more powerful. To make this threat credible, the U.S. is attempting to enlist countries around China to take its side and to encircle China with bases and troops.”

 

The report concluded, “Because of its strategic location, the Philippines is among the countries in which the U.S. wants to establish bases, secure access agreements, and station troops. But apart from the Philippines, the U.S. also wants the same in other countries in the region. The problem is that these other countries on whom it is relying for support do not necessarily want to go against China and are not necessarily willing to give the U.S. what it needs. Because of its favorable disposition towards the U.S. compared to other countries, the Philippines becomes even more critical to U.S. military strategy in the region and in the world.”

 

Seven years after the publication of the report, the United States and the Philippines signed EDCA during the state visit of U.S. President Obama last April 28, 2014, formalizing what has already been effectively allowed on the ground for several years— unimpeded access by American troops to military bases in the Philippines. Both the U.S. and Philippine government officials are running on deception mode when they insist that EDCA would promote the mutual obligations of the two countries as envisaged in the Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT) signed in 1951. MDT was of Cold War vintage, and EDCA is a newer containment strategy.

 

On the pretext of “enhanced defense cooperation,” EDCA guarantees U.S. military basing in the Philippines that is even more comprehensive than the 1947 Military Bases Agreement. The United States will be able to “preposition and store” military equipment, supplies, and materiel at AFP bases and other territories. Under U.S. operational control, American troops can use airfields, ports, public roads, and community areas; as well as construct infrastructures and other facilities in so-called “agreed locations.”

 

Why President Aquino would not involve the Philippine Senate in the adoption of EDCA is obvious for two reasons. First, Aquino fears he could not muster the same majority in the Senate that would approve EDCA that he had when Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached. And second, Aquino is simply acting true to form as the best Amboy in the Far East.

 

Since the Senate cannot force President Aquino to submit EDCA to the Senate for review and approval, the only option is for the Philippine Supreme Court to step in and render its interpretation. But given that Aquino has already stacked up the Supreme Court with his appointees, its decision is a foregone conclusion.

 

EDCA has been conceived in immaculate deception.

 

The Philippine government, from President Aquino to his military and foreign policy advisers, has willingly allowed to be duped by their American counterpart in rebalancing U.S. strategy in Asia to pursue its principal objective of containing the rise of China. This is why the Senate has been kept in the dark. And for a gratuitous show of American military muscle on the South China Sea that could intimidate China to rethink its military strategy, the Philippines paid the ultimate price. It gave up its sovereignty to the Americans, all for free.

Flunking history

 

 

As a student of history, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III gets a failing mark.

 

Recently, President Aquino compared China’s conduct of foreign relations on the simmering South China dispute with Hitler’s acquisition of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938. Aquino said the Sudetenland “was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II.”



Philippine President Benigno Aquino III. Photo by AFP.

Aquino’s statement was only partly correct insofar as the European powers at that time, Great Britain and France, agreed to let Czechoslovakia give up the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in order to avert another war in the continent. This was against the position of the US commission to the Paris Peace Conference which unanimously supported the unity of Czech lands, including the area of the Sudetenland that was occupied by ethnic Germans. Of course, Hitler eventually invaded and annexed Czechoslovakia to the Third Reich.

 

But where is the parallel between Hitler’s Sudetenland with China and the South China Sea dispute that President Aquino was alluding to?

 

The Sudetenland was inhabited by German-speaking ethnic groups and was driven by local nationalist sentiment to join the German republic. There was an impulse in the Sudetenland to rejoin Germany, unlike the islands and various rock formations in the South China Sea which are largely uninhabited by any distinct population or ethnic group. In fact, after the Second World War, hundreds of thousands of ethnic-speaking Germans escaped Sudetenland and resettled in West Germany. On the other hand, most of the islands being claimed by the Philippines, China and four other Asian countries remain submerged under water during high tide and are practically uninhabitable by people.

 

The South China dispute is a territorial conflict among several Asian countries which claim competing sovereignty over islands and rock formations, primarily because of their potential rich oil and mineral deposits. No claimant country is eager about going to war for the sole reason of asserting sovereignty rights. The dispute could be considered a flashpoint for a wider armed conflict, but that’s all there is to it—not necessarily an impetus for war.

 

Comparing China with Hitler’s aggressiveness in acquiring the Sudetenland is obviously inflammatory and contrary to negotiating a settlement through diplomacy. President Aquino is simply fanning the flames and outrage against China’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea. Again, as a loyal American boy himself, Aquino is serving the interests of the United States for being the spokesperson for containing China’s rising hegemony in Asia and the Pacific.

Crisis in the South China Sea. Photo by UNCLOS and CIA.

President Aquino is emboldened by a mistaken belief in the illusion that the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States will save him from his belligerent rhetoric against China. This defence agreement is a moribund instrument, signed by the two countries at the height of the Cold War in 1951, for the sole purpose of limiting the spread of communism in Asia. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the decline of the threat of communism in the 1990s, the menace of communism has totally receded, even in the face of the local communist-inspired insurrection by the New People’s Army (NPA).

 

Like the former US bases in the Philippines, the Mutual Defence Treaty between the Philippines and the United States serves only as a magnet to foreign aggression. Instead of seeking accommodation and modus vivendi, President Aquino has been animated by the US commitments expressed in this 1950s vintage Cold War origin security treaty, which is backed by US-Philippines joint military exercises under the US Visiting Forces Agreement.

 

During her visit to Manila on November 11, 2011, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on the 60th anniversary of the Mutual Defence Treaty that “the US will always be in the corner of the Philippines. We will always stand and fight with you to achieve the future we seek.”

 

It was the most gratuitous, yet unconstructive declaration by the former Secretary of State, that could be deemed provocative and ill-conceived given the practice of the United States not to take sides and be involved in regional conflicts in Asia and the Pacific.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit to the Philippines
which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the nations' Mutual Defence Treaty.

But the US mutual obligation under the treaty in the event of a foreign invasion is more illusory than real. Reading the fine print of the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty would show that it is not automatic for the United States to come to the defence of the Philippines in case of hostilities with China. Under Article IV of the treaty, in case of an armed attack in the Pacific, both parties must act in accordance with their constitutional processes before introducing their armies into any hostility. Thus, the treaty is not “self-executing” or binding on the United States unless its Congress enacts an implementing law to commit the US military.

 

Besides, the treaty expressly refers to an armed attack in the Pacific, and the South China Sea, arguably, is not part of the Pacific.

 

President Aquino would not have the audacity to rile China with his blunt, careless, and undiplomatic statements if not for the mirage of the US military coming to defend the Philippines in case of war. This is also true in the case of Japan. The Japan-China dispute would probably not have escalated to its current level by Japan provoking nationalization of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, if not for assurances of applicability of the U.S. defense commitment to the disputed islands.

 

North Korea’s provocative development of nuclear weapons and other acts of belligerence are also clear examples of how these US defence treaties operate in escalating conflict rather than promoting détente. The presence of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula serves in limiting China’s willingness and ability to exert pressure on North Korea to denuclearize.

 

At present, US servicemen join the Armed Forces of the Philippines on a rotating basis throughout the year, not only in military exercises but also in the latter’s campaigns against NPA and Muslim secessionist rebels. The U.S. also maintains some 28,500 servicemen and women in South Korea and some 34,000 uniformed personnel plus dependents in Japan. Two major U.S. air force bases and the Futenma Marine Air Base occupy a large part of Okinawa. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is also headquartered in Yokosuka, Japan.

 

To the eyes of any intelligent observer, the presence of U.S. military in Asia and the Pacific has therefore become more of an attraction for foreign aggression and an irresponsible shield used by leaders of these countries in promoting belligerence and a rationale for going to war.

 

The alliances built by the United States with the Philippines, Japan, and Korea clearly represent a dangerous remnant of the Second World War, and particularly the Cold War that has long since ceased to be justifiable under any reasonable scenarios. All countries in the region would probably enjoy greater stability and security if these alliances were dismantled and U.S. military forces withdrawn.

 

These mutual defence commitments, and the ongoing negotiations between the United States and the Philippines in Washington for a new military framework agreement, are stoking the bluster in President Noynoy Aquino’s immature broadsides against China, even to the extent of misinterpreting history. While the Aquino government has been proclaiming the need for a rules-based and peaceful settlement of the South China Sea dispute, it continues to undermine this process by unnecessarily portraying China as a bully and Hitler-like in dealing with its smaller and less powerful neighbours.

“Sana Di SONA”

 

 

The 1987 Philippine Constitution does not say the President must deliver a State of the Nation Address (popularly shortened nowadays as SONA) at the opening of the regular session of Congress. It only states that “The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session.”

 

For whatever the noble purpose behind this constitutional mandate to address Congress when it opens for business, it seems lost in the hype and build-up by the media and naturally by the President’s own men (or women) who want him to shine and sparkle. As it turns out, the SONA becomes an annual event for pomp and ceremony, just like the state of the union address of the US President or the Speech from the Throne in the case of the British Parliament or any of the commonwealth nations which continue to consider the Queen of England as their head of state.

Benigno Aquino III SONA composite courtesy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Notice the receding hariline. Click link to read full text of President Aquino's 2013 SONA,
 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/07/22/13/english-version-president-aquinos-sona-2013-full-text

To me, the only sensible paragraph in President Benigno Aquino III’s long and drawn-out SONA is when he said: “Tomorrow, we are submitting to Congress our proposed 2.268 trillion-peso National Budget for 2014. I am confident of your support and advocacy for the allocation of funds which was arrived at after careful consideration. This budget is not only a continuation of our reforms, but it will also accelerate our momentum towards long-lasting inclusive progress.”

 

Of course, this should not be taken literally. The Constitution gives the president thirty days from opening of Congress to submit a budget of expenditures and revenues which shall be the basis of the general appropriations bill to be passed by Congress.

 

Thus, the SONA has become nothing but beautiful music to the President’s ears and his captured audience, thin in substance but long in aspiration and hope. In fact, there is more sense in listening to SONA’s critics for they make you appreciate the honest truth that is missing in the President’s speech. One could only continue hoping to hear the truth instead of the SONA.

 

President Aquino’s latest SONA is purely aspirational, a call to continue the change the President has said he has begun in transforming our society. A familiar refrain we hear every time a new President speaks before Congress: “this nation can be great again,” or “we can dream again,” etcetera.

 

For Noynoy Aquino to declare he is proud to be a Filipino is expected of a nation’s leader. He cannot say otherwise or else reap the ire of the people. But to say “How wonderful it is to be a Filipino in these times” is equivalent to self-denial, to whitewashing the truth with a layer of lies. That’s why it’s better to listen to SONA’s critics, you hear the real story of the nation, not the one advertised, straight from the horse’s mouth.

 

“How wonderful it is to be a Filipino in these times” sounds like the country’s tourism slogan, “It’s more fun in the Philippines.”

 

Let us take apart the President’s SONA by focusing rather on the bigger issues he has tried to sell to Congress and to the people at large.

 

The President spoke of a strategy of maximizing opportunities for all, especially for those most in need, which he calls, “inclusive growth,” that surprisingly sounded upbeat to some although in reality is actually a mere sound bite, more like “daang matuwid.”

 

Financial institutions such as the World Bank and development-focused United Nations organizations, including the Asian Development Bank, have defined “inclusive growth” to be “broad based growth, shared growth, and pro-poor growth”. By this definition, inclusive growth implies an equitable allocation of resources that benefits every sector of society. It also requires the creation of an environment of equality in opportunity in all dimensions of livelihood, a platform for people who are poor to access a good standard of living. Defined simply, inclusive growth means improved living standards for all, including the poor and those vulnerable to poverty. In short, it must be socially inclusive and not only for the benefit of a privileged few such as the oligarchic elite.

 

The underlying premise of inclusive growth is that societies based on equality tend to perform better in development. For example, countries with more equal income distribution are likely to achieve higher rates of poverty reduction than very unequal countries.

 

In his SONA, President Aquino said that “widespread opportunity is the key to comprehensive and sustained progress,” not equal opportunity (repeat: not equal) which is the cornerstone of inclusive growth. He explained the exclusive nature of his concept of inclusive growth by saying that “the only ones who will be left behind are those who chose not to venture onwards with us, simply because they did not seize the opportunity.”

 

Clearly, Aquino’s concept of inclusive growth applies only to people who join the government’s bandwagon, those who have access to opportunity and these are the people who will benefit from his government policies and programs. Under such circumstances where opportunities may be deemed widespread but not fully accessible to all, those who are poor and vulnerable in society will never be included to benefit from the President’s policy of inclusive growth.

 

Those who are poor are well known for their militant opposition to government lip-service initiatives, such as poverty alleviation programs like the conditional cash transfer program, more popularly known as Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Because the poor have lost their trust in President Aquino, they would never link up and be beholden to this program.

SONA protesters clash with police as President Benigno Aquino III delivers his
speech before the Batasang Pambansa.  Elmer Labog, secretary general of Kilusang
Mayo Uno (KMU), says: "Aquino's grandioise claims of economic growth based
on cherry-picked economic indicators fail to hide the economic indicators that matter
to ordinary Filipinos. Landlessness is growing; unemployment is rising; wages are
being depressed; prices are soaring; and social services are decaying as they become
more scarce."

Aquino boasted in his SONA that there are now almost 4 million households that benefited from the program compared to 700,000 household beneficiaries when he came to office in 2010. But he forgot to mention that based on a poverty incidence of 27.9% or 26.8 million poor Filipinos and a projected population of 96.2 million in 2012, there would be an increase in the number of poor Filipinos to 3 to 4 million. This increase would wipe out the gains under Aquino’s 4Ps, implying that poor people are multiplying faster than the number of beneficiaries the government can enlist in the program.

 

Despite the government’s poverty alleviation program, poverty in the Philippines has remained unchanged. Not because the poor did not seize their opportunity under the Aquino administration, but because economic and income inequalities continue to persist and inclusive growth remains elusive. Even as the current administration keeps correcting and revising the official daily poverty threshold, the resulting low official poverty threshold would still show that there are currently between 38 to 68 million poor Filipino households, the worst scale of poverty in the country's history.

 

We can go through the litany of so-called achievements enumerated by President Aquino in his SONA one by one, and each one falls flat. Do not be mesmerized by his elocution, his ability to speak to the level of the masses, and being at home speaking in English and Pilipino. Obviously, the President has become a quick study and has now mastered the art of communication. At the end of the SONA, what remains important is the message, not the medium. The SONA is not an Oscar awards event and we don’t need commentaries on what the President wore or how he combed his thinning hair, the ternos worn by female members of Congress, and whether one needs a make-over.

 

Instead of SONA, our country deserves to be told the truth, not a bunch of lies or made-up statistics used to embellish the speech. Instead of pageantry and celebration, the President and Congress must buckle down to work. A simple laundry list of priority items to pursue is more than enough. Instead of wasting almost two hours of rambling before Congress,  President Aquino should have told members of Congress what important legislation needs to be enacted now or sooner so he can continue the job of serving his real bosses. That, he could accomplish in less than half an hour.

 

Some groups critical of the Aquino administration described the first three years as “ampaw” rule, like “hollow bread with a lot of air in the middle.” According to the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (Cenpeg), a think-tank based in the University of the Philippines, three years of Aquino governance only entrenched the oligarchic elite in the country. In other words, only the elite gained from three years of Aquino leadership yet the President, never worrying if his nose stretches, calls it inclusive growth.

 

Other militant groups listed at least 10 lies President Aquino claimed in his SONA but which will not be printed in newspapers controlled by the President and his friends, ranging from the lie of “rapid economic growth” to the lie that the ongoing armed civil unrest has been quelled.

 

Cenpeg has further rebuked President Aquino’s overhyped mantra of “Kayo ang boss ko” (the masses are my boss) as a hypocritical and meaningless slogan. This time the President talks about inclusive growth, another fancy concept, but does he really mean it? Or is it another “daang matuwid” gone crooked?

 

Sana na lang, instead of SONA.