EDCA: Weighing the Pursuit of National Interest

Conflagration among Filipino people especially among netizens sparked when the US-PH Enhanced Defense Cooperative Agreement (EDCA) was signed into an agreement and when the Supreme Court dismissed the question of constitutionality and sovereignty on such case bought before it. 

Critics assail its constitutionality as well as the threat it might pose to national sovereignty insofar as it would allow US military troops to go in and out of the country.
According to the anti-EDCA petitioner and counsel Rachel Pastores, "The gamut of right and authorities granted to the US Forces with respect to the Agreed Locations is practically surrendering the US forces sovereignty of the Philippines with respect to the agreed locations." Chief Justice Sereno, however, rejected such allegations contending that such substantive issues raised are mere speculative declarations made by petitioners. [1]

Bottom line suggests that views on EDCA all boil down to sacrificing national security or sacrificing national sovereignty. Which one really serves the pursuit of our national interest?

Despite the growing criticisms faced on the issues of EDCA, we have to admit the fact that the EDCA is still a vital part of our foreign relation with US especially that we are confronted with so many national security issues like terrorism--not to mention the weak credibility of our military vis-a-vis the long standing dispute with China in relation to the Spratlys. 

However, as much as the benefits are afforded to us in a bargaining position, as we really need adequate military support from our US allies in terms of military improvement, such relation should still be regulated so as not to jeopardize the sanctity of our sovereign rights as a state as well as the inviolability of our laws. The paramount consideration first and foremost, of course, should still be consistent with our national interest as stipulated in Article 2, section 2 of the 1987 constitution. 

Contrary to what anti-EDCA counsel Harry Roque would assert that Philippines is a factotum of US and that we are mere lackey of our past colonial master [2], it would be a hypocrisy to reject such a potential good deal just because of ideologically generated claims that the Philippines, time and time again, has been a puppet of a more powerful state.

Truly, the Philippines, because of its weak diplomatic position, cannot avail the benefits afforded to those powerful countries like the US, but to disapprove such agreement would be to increase burden to our military capacity as well as diplomacy.

Also, contrary to Roque's suggestion that the government should rather increase its funds for military services [3], we have to face the reality that there is no assurance that increase in government spending on military support will render a more facile, advanced and mobilized military since there are institutional restrictions that impede the spending of such budget. Also, would it be more wise to spend the budget on more important things like education instead or economic measures? And in so far as the EDCA is concerned, it would best serve our interest since we no longer have to spend tremendously on military improvements but to hone it based on such cooperative foreign agreement.

Thus, the precepts bought forth by EDCA does not necessarily entail sacrificing national sovereignty and security but rather strengthening it in the pursuit of our national interest.

                                                               

[1] Justices to EDCA critics: How to defend West Philippine Sea?
[2] EDCA critic: China execs think Philippines is a US lackey
[3] id.