United

A country's foreign policy, also called the foreign relations policy, consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve goals within its international relations milieu.

The Philippine foreign policy derives its power from the mandate of the Constitution under Article II, section 2: "The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice." And under section 7:  "The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination." And to further emphasize the mandate of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 7157, otherwise known as "Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991” was enacted.  

Philippine foreign policy is based on the advancement of Filipino ideals and values, which include the advancement of democracy and advocacy for human rights worldwide

The nation is currently actively engaging with regional neighbors in Southeast Asia through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (as a founding member) with the intention of strengthening regional harmony, stability, and prosperity. It has been a supporter of East Timor since the latter's independence and has expanded trade links with its traditional allies Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Relations with Vietnam and Cambodia have thawed in the 1990s after their entry into the ASEAN.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten Member States of ASEAN with the aims and purposes were about cooperation in the economic, social, cultural, technical, educational and other fields, and in the promotion of regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization established 24 October 1945, to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was created following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict.

In general, the aims and purposes of the Philippine foreign policy is the three pillars mentioned in the Republic Act 7157, preservation and enhancement of national security, promotion and attainment of economic security, protection of the rights and promotion of the welfare and interest of Filipino overseas.

Raising the Bar

Set on track by the end of 2015 is the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) aiming for a broader and deeper economic integration amongst the members of the Association of the South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).  AEC is designed to establish ASEAN as single market and production base with the goal of making it more competitive and dynamic. 

Economic Integration is the process in which economic borders are abolished among countries and/or participating regions to give place for a free flow of goods, services and production factors.[1] The idea behind economic integration is equitable economic development.

President Benigno Aquino said on his statement at the 24th ASEAN Summit plenary last May 11, 2014, “the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community will be seen as a culmination of years of forging a high level of integration, cooperation, and collaboration amongst our economies—efforts aimed at ensuring a mutually beneficial environment for all members and all peoples of ASEAN. At the same time, we are still faced with challenges in achieving our collective goal of inclusive growth and sustained development.”[2]

AEC leads to the efficient use of resources and is beneficial to the members of the ASEAN according to most of the entrepreneurs. On its face, AEC is more or less similar with European Union (EU) which is now under a debt dilemma.  On the outset, therefore, it is inevitable to think of the consequences of AEC such as an eventual debt crisis like what EU is experiencing and perhaps, constitutional issues as regards Filipino- first policy might come up as well.

Indeed challenges are ahead and as much as AEC is ideal, is the Philippines ready for it? Beneficial as it may be, some Filipinos are worrisome about this regional economic integration. Be that as it may, AEC’s aim is towards economic development wherein challenges are unavoidable. Certainly, there is no room for complacency just to avoid possible difficulties.

EU might be suffering from debt crisis but it does not follow that when AEC kicks off, ASEAN will likewise walk on the same path.  The people need to be open-minded on this kind of development and shall be united come AEC.

I am not patriotic and I doubt if it’s about that, nevertheless, I believe that Philippines… Filipinos can and will keep pace with the competition because when they raise the bar, people just have to gear up and  level with that.

---

[1] ASEAN and EU Economic Integration: A comparative Analysis by Nguyen Anh Thu, Vietnam National University

[2] http://www.gov.ph/2014/05/11/intervention-of-president-aquino-at-the-24th-asean-summit-plenary-may-11-2014/ (last visited 11/28/2014)

A Better Growth through FDI

The Philippines’ growing middle class, strong domestic demand, and stable political environment, paired with gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 7.2% in 2013 make the country an increasingly attractive destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). FDI rose in 2013 and is expected to continue with the Government of the Philippines (GPH) emphasizing job creation and inclusive economic growth. Thanks to a relatively large, educated, English-speaking workforce, the Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO) and tourism industries have experienced growth in recent years and these trends are likely to continue. Under the administration of President Benigno Aquino, the Philippines has implemented reforms to improve the investment climate, making strides in good governance, transparency, and accountability.

Restrictions on foreign ownership rules, poor infrastructure, and corruption continue to be significant concerns for investors. Strengthening the rule of law is important as a complex and slow judicial system inhibits the timely and fair resolution of commercial disputes. In general, the Philippines lags behind its Asian neighbors in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) because many sectors of the economy are limited to foreign investment. The Philippines has recently liberalized some of its industries to stimulate investments, specifically infrastructure, insurance, banking, telecommunications, and power industries. Invest Philippines is the GPH’s network of investment promotion agencies. [1]

According to present reports about the Philippine economic update, it is transparent that the country’s economy has strong growth in the past two years despite of its slow start in the first quarter of 2014. Over the years, our good foreign relation is one of the leverage to this development and it helped a lot in uplifting the Filipino lives and reducing poverty. Currently, the Philippines will be hosting on ASEAN PPP guidelines. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aims to harmonize the principles on the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) to further improve the economic assimilation and worldwide competitiveness of the region. Our active participation will be an avenue to the better growth of our nation with the help of other countries. This indicates that progress is at work.

However, there are still confined problems that hinder the full progression of advancement. World Bank says, “Philippines can sustain high growth by accelerating structural reforms and increasing investments in infrastructure and in the health and education of the Filipino people.” Also, the slow pacing of our judicial system and the classic problem of our country, corruption, clogs the way to successfully gain from the prospects in our investment sector. These are aspects that should be given more attention by the government. We have all the opportunity to step forward and to be a rich country, not just in monetary terms, but also to have educated and skilled people who will lead us to achievement as a country. The executive summary of 2014 Investment Climate Statement stated that investors generally report that Philippines bureaucracy is non-discriminatory, but describe business registration and procedures as slow and burdensome. Overall, however, the climate of the Philippines has improved. If the country can maintain its reform momentum, its prospects for investment will continue to brighten.

[1] 2014 Investment Climate Statement, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, June 2014 Report at m.state.gov/md226859

Mending of Political Wounds

The relationship of Hong Kong and the Philippines was soured when the Manila hostage crisis happened. This involves a number of Hong Kong tourists being hostages of a dismissed police officer Rolando Mendoza. This hostage crisis happened on August 23, 2010. As a result of this crisis, the Hong Kong government asked for an apology from the Philippines. Chief Executives Pres. Aquino III (Philippines) and CY Leung (Hong Kong) met. Aquino III extended our condolences to Hong Kong but did not give the apology. For him, there is no need to say sorry because in our system, we cannot admit wrongdoing if it's not ours. Aside from the apology, Hong Kong also asked for compensation for the survivors and the casualties; and that the local officials involved in the failed rescue be held liable. For not giving the apology, Philippines was blacklisted on the Outbound Travel Alert and Hong Kong residents were also advised not to travel here. Also, Filipinos were now only allowed to a maximum of 14-day stay in Hong Kong without a visa.

What went wrong?

There were several errors on how the government handled the situation. First, the Ombudsman not granting his request right away. Mendoza complained that he was harassed and that he was dismissed by the Ombudsman without being heard. His dismissal removed all his benefits and that his good name was tarnished. He demanded for reinstatement. This was the only reason of Mendoza doing the crime. Second, the commander in chief, Mayor Lim, going out for dinner in the most crucial time of the crisis. According to report, later that day, the Ombudsman already ordered Mendoza's reinstatement but it was addressed to Lim. Since Lim was out for dinner, there is no one in command with the operations. Third, the lack of safety protective gears and equipment of our policemen. When Mendoza began shooting, the policeman tried to get into the bus but they could not break-in. When they smash the sledge hammer unto the bus' windows, which were reinforced flexi-glass, Mendoza fires a gun to battle for his survival. Since our police were not protected by bulletproof vests, they back out. And lastly, which I can say is the worst among all errors, the uncontrolled media. In their quest to get the best scoop, the media participated in the crime. Media showed how Mendoza's brother was caught by the police, where the SWAT team were situated and that the police were trying to get into the bus. These were all broadcast live. The bus was television-equipped; thus, Mendoza was able to plan on his action. 

What should have been done?

First, the Ombudsman should have granted the reinstatement of Mendoza to save the lives of the hostages. The government can just file criminal charges against him with regard to the hostage-taking afterwards. Second, during such crisis, a commander in chief should not leave the command post without assigning a person to be in his shoe. Third, policemen should have been given safety protective gears and equipment to handle such crisis. Lastly, media should at least be responsible in what they should and what should not report live. Since our media is protected by the Bill of Rights, news blackout is not possible. What is possible is to select the reports that can be broadcast live. During the crisis, the media were not responsible. Reports like the positions of the SWAT team and that the policemen trying to enter the bus should have not been broadcast live since these reports had given Mendoza idea on what the actions of the authorities were. Thus, Mendoza was able to plan for his next move.

Mayor Estrada's apology and how did it make difference.

April 2014, Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, the Local Chief Executive of the City of Manila, went to Hong Kong to apologize to the Hong Kong Government for what had happened on August 23, 2010. This apology of Mayor Estrada normalized the ties between the two states. Diplomats and officials were now again enjoying the visa-free access to Hong Kong and that the travel warning imposed against the Philippines was also lifted. 

What's Ours is Ours

 Palawan Court found nine Chinese fishermen guilty of poaching and environmental crimes for fishing within Philippine waters. These Chinese fishermen were arrested after Police found hundreds of sea turtles and other protected species on their vessels. Fines were imposed against them.

Violations and crimes were commited in the disputed waters, again, may taint relations with China aside from the pending territorial dispute in the area. According to Foreign Affairs spokesperson Charles Jose, issue is purely a law enforcement matter after China demanded the release of the fishermen and claimed that it is undisputed sovereignty.

Our government should not be threaten thus must be firm instead. The violations as found by Palawan Court should be respected as an independent branch of the government which should be obeyed and executed faithfully.

Our laws were created to protect our rights. People who violate them should be prosecuted in accordance with law regardless of their race, gender, occupation or status in life. We are equal in the eyes of law. It is plain and square that there were violations and the Chinese fishermen should serve the punishment or fine imposed to them.

The decision laid by the Palawan Court has nothing to do with the pending territotial dispute with China. Evidences proved that sea turtles and other endangered species within Philippine waters were illegallly taken by the Chinese fishermen. To note, these are endangered species and should not be taken from their home neither should be taken for business or other illegal purposes. Since hundreds of marine species were taken, the penalties and fines imposed should be greater and higher. For if not, no man will adhere to laws and will repeat the same illegal acts. Giving them leeway would mean our laws and officials are ineffective. It constitutes partiality which gives chance to anyone to act as they please.

Our government, regardless of the existing agreements, treaties and relations involving economic policies and strategies should ensure that our treasures such sea creatures, natural resources as our source of living and mark of our culture are within the Philippine territory are protected and preserved not only by its people but from anyone else. But our government cannot stand without the support of its people. Laws are implemented for the people and against them. While jurisdiction issue must be considered, our rights and sovereighty must also be upheld.

We are being bullied by different countries and we should not let them. We should stand against it, guided by our laws and supported by our rights. For after all, what’s ours is ours.

One World, One Family

The United Nation (UN) is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.[1]

In the Philippines, UN Development Programme (UNDP) fosters human development for peace and prosperity. Working with central and local Governments as well as civil society, and building on global best practices; UNDP strengthens capacities of women, men and institutions to empower them to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the objectives of the Philippine Development Plan. Through advocacy and development projects, with a special focus on vulnerable groups, UNDP works to ensure a better life for the Filipino people.[2]

One year ago, when Typhoon Yolanda made landfall in the Eastern Visayas region, it caused wide spread damages and losses. UNDP’s programme in support to Typhoon Yolanda Recovery and Resilience in the Visayas region (TRRV) takes into account differential impacts, vulnerabilities and capacities across the affected region and articulates an area-based approach around four programming hubs: Tacloban, Guiuan, Ormoc, and Roxas. It aims to meet some of the immediate early recovery needs of the affected people and to assist with critical recovery interventions to support the country in transitioning from early recovery to rehabilitation, while creating conditions for long-term recovery, resilience and sustainable development.[3]

The programme builds on prior UNDP engagement and partnerships in the affected areas, including extensive work on debris/ solid waste management, disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, support to local governance, rural development and environmental resilience and sustainability. It takes into account the high level of decentralization in the country, the opportunity to partner with an active civil society and the private sector, and the critical role of central line departments in emergency response and recovery.[4]

Unity among the countries will truly help not only the Philippines but the whole world in maintaining peace and order, promoting social and economic progress and improving rapport among different countries in the world. Since we live in one world, we are responsible to take care, support and help each other.

---

[1] UN AT A GLANCE, available at http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml, (last accessed November 23, 2014)

[2] UNDP IN THE PHILIPPINES, available at http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/ourwork/overview.html, (last accessed November 23, 2014)

[3] http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/presscenter/typhoon-haiyan--yolanda-/

[4] ID.

EDCA: Executive Agreement or a Treaty

International agreement refers to a contract or understanding, regardless of nomenclature, entered into between the Philippines and another government in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in single instruments.[1]

In our laws, Treaties are international agreements entered into by the Philippines which require legislative concurrence after executive ratification. This includes compacts like conventions, declarations, covenants and acts. [2]

In International law, Treaty means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation. [3]

Executive Agreements in the other hand are similar to treaties except that they do not require legislative concurrence.[4]

Under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. [5]

In our laws, the binding effects between treaties and executive agreements are the same even though latter needs no concurrence with the senate. General rule is that, international agreement of any kind, whether bilateral or multilateral, requires Senate concurrence[6] the exception to that is executive agreements[7].

Commissioner Joaquin Bernas made a clarification in his book by quoting from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading:

“The right of the executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history, we have entered into executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations, most favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of this has never been seriously questioned by our Courts.”

“Agreements with respect to the registration of trademarks have been concluded by the executive and various countries under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat. 502) . . . International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving international agreements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But international agreements embodying adjustments of detail, carrying out well established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive agreements.”[8]

Commissioner Bernas further explained that, international agreements, which require Senate concurrence, are those, which are permanent in nature or which establish nation policy. Such agreements are in fact treaties. But executive agreements on the other hand are merely implementation of treaties or of statutes or of well-established policy or are of a transitory effectivity that does not require concurrence.[9]

The Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement is an executive agreement as it merely further implements a well-established policy in Article II of the MDT (Mutual Defense Treaty) which states that “the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective policy to resist attack” and within the context of VFA.[10]

EDCA does not need concurrence with the senate as far as the purpose and nature of the agreement is further implementation of an agreed treaties which is the MDT and VFA.

---

[1] Section 2(a)Executive Order No. 459, Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International Agreements and its Ratification

[2] Ibid. Section 2 (b)

[3] Article 2 (1) (a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

[4] Ibid. Section 2(c)

[5] USAFE Veterans Association Inc. vs. Treasurer of the Philippines, 105 Phil. 1030, 1037 [1959] as cited in Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary, 2009 Edition

[6] Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary, 2009 Edition, p.935

[7] Section 7(a)Executive Order No. 459, Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International Agreements and its Ratification

[8] Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351

[9] Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A commentary, 2009 Edition, p.935

[10] Art. 1 of Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement.