Tipping the Scales of a Mutual Treaty

Laws exist to ensure order and protection within a society.  For the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), they were meant to ensure the country’s protection against international forces. These were results of a President’s constitutional authority (under Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution) to enter into international treaties (with the concurrence of the Senate) as part of his/her responsibility to protect his/her constituents. Back then, Pres. Elpidio Quirino approved the MDT in 1951 after World War II in an effort to limit the spread of communism in its time (however this expired in 1992); Pres. Fidel Ramos approved the VFA in 1998 (as the first military agreement since the expiration of the MDT in 1992) and was ratified and concurred through by the Senate during the time of Pres. Joseph Estrada in 1999; and now, we have the EDCA which was signed only last April 28, 2014 as an “implementation agreement”  of the VFA.

Fifteen years after the effectivity of the VFA, we now wonder what good it has brought the Philippines and if we should review or even terminate the same consequently nullifying the EDCA as it is anchored to the VFA (thus, the need to tackle both). Is the Philippines really in the losing end of these agreements?

I believe that the VFA and EDCA are highly iniquitous against our country. We must view our present issues in light of why we entered into such treaties in the first place. Is it to receive assistance from the United States (US) when attacked by other countries? But nowhere does it expressly say that they will come to our aid instantaneously. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has opined that the US shall first need the permission of its Senate before it sends its troops for our defense. Or is it to train our armies and modernize our military equipment? But 15 years later, we still have the same problems as when the VFA became effective.  We still consider our neighbors a threat to our security, i.e., we are still unable to defend ourselves against them. And if it was really the intent of the US to help us modernize our equipment, then why does it expressly state under Article V of EDCA that the US shall transfer or sell “equipment determined to be EXCESS” to the Philippines (which reduces us to procure only their excess equipment)? Moreover, if they do intend to train and modernize, then why can’t our leaders give a deadline to when this "modernization" will occur? Even more so, why is there no deadline to their supposed “temporary” stay?

On the other side of the fence, how is the US doing? We see their advantage in the area of criminal jurisdiction. It states under Article V of the VFA, that the Philippines shall exercise primary jurisdiction over US personnel (except for crimes such as treason) but custody “shall immediately reside with United States military authorities… until completion of all judicial proceedings”. However, if our Filipino military personnel in the US commit a crime, the US shall have automatic custody as confirmed by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario during a Senate Committee Hearing last October 22, 2014. We also see their undue advantage in the light of the US’ “Pivot to Asia” strategy that is meant to “re-balance” their interests in Europe and the Middle East toward East Asia because of their worries of China becoming a possible superpower. Only the Philippines, among the other Southeast Asian countries, continuously houses US military bases at no cost, for their personal interests and, as mentioned, shall remain to be so indefinitely.

With the foregoing circumstances, the President— as part of his responsibility to protect his constituents— must assert sovereignty and uphold the country’s good above all else.  The Senate and the House of Representatives—even advocacy groups—have recommended possible options thru resolutions and manifestos but, ultimately, it is the President who shall answer the question if the Philippines is in the losing end of these agreements. Because the president, under the Constitution, is the only person given the authority to decide - and to actually do something about it.