U.S. influence is very visible and very much present in the
Filipino culture. It has a long-stemming origin and its effect can be very much
felt up until today. As a simple proof of their influence being felt today is
that I am writing this blog in English and it is because of the American’s
influence over our education system. But once the topic of U.S. influence moves
over to their military presence in the country the arguments become a little
more heated as the country’s sovereignty, independence and freedom now becomes
part of the debate.
In a
recent case brought before the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of the Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement or EDCA came into question as the seemingly
never-ending debate about the military relationship between the United States
and the Philippines is once again deliberated upon.
The
primary controversy that is being deliberated in the EDCA case is the use of an
Executive Agreement which only needs the signature of the President to be
effective, as opposed to a treaty where it would need the concurrence of
two-thirds of the Senate which I believe is more representative of the stand of
the people when it comes to the controversy at hand. As the Supreme Court
clearly explained about the said issue is that the means to make the EDCA
effective could have been made either by Executive Agreement or by treaty. And
with that established the question of the effectiveness of the EDCA actually
became a political one. By choosing to take the Executive Agreement route in
the execution of the EDCA was there an abuse of power by the President in this
issue. There would have been a clear drawback into choosing a treaty route in handling
the concern has debate and deliberation would have taken a whole lot longer
than an executive agreement since the opinion and stance of each senator would
have been taken into consideration in order to execute the EDCA. But by
choosing the executive agreement route the ever enviable Executive Power comes
in full display and it does question the sentimentality of one person’s about
the controversy at hand and does it represent the sentimentalities of the
people he governs. I think that is the heart of the issue at hand here because obviously
with the concern being discussed at the Supreme Court it shows that the people
have different standing when it comes to this particular debate. My take on the
issue is very much diverse. I do agree with the petitioners that a debate as lively
as this issue brings the treaty route would have been less controversial, not
in terms context of process but in a manner that the opinions of the Senators,
as I expressly said earlier would have been more representative of the
sentiments of the people as each one would have their take on the concern as
opposed to an executive agreement which only expresses the motives of one
person. But then again, as the Supreme Court puts it, the issue actually sits
on a much bigger problem. The military presence of the United States in our
country could be a favor to the country as we tackle on different issues that
surrounds the state such as the China conflict in the West Philippine Sea, War
on terrorism which our country is very much involved in and natural disasters
such as typhoon Yolanda wherein we needed the help of the international community.
The presence of the US military in the country gives us both a preventive and
immediate solution when it comes to the other issues mentioned. Therefore my
conclusion to this issue is that the procedural debate as to the effectiveness
of the EDCA takes a backseat if we think about the benefits this agreement
would possibly give us. And as for the issue of freedom and independence this
issue brings forth, I believe that the US are not the bullies here but rather
they are the big brothers who are here to help us whenever the need for help
arises.
Source: Saguisag vs Ochoa, G.R. No 212426, January 12, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment