One voice for policies and directions
Sinabi niya yun?” Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana burst out in obvious incredulity (ABS-CBN TV Patrol, 03.13.2017).
“He said that?” was the question that reverberated in rippling fear to gripping apprehension among those who thought: how could the President/Commander-in-Chief not have told his Defense Secretary that it was okay for Chinese ships to loiter in undisputedly Philippine territorial waters, off Isabela?
Days before Lorenzana expressed shock that the President knew of, and abetted the, Chinese presence at Benham Rise, Lorenzana had so dramatically announced, with such patriotic indignation that “several ( Chinese) service ships have been plying this area, staying in one area sometimes for a month as if doing nothing. Last year, they were monitored there for about three months… But we believe they are actually surveying the seabed… information was that they are looking for a place to put submarines ( The Philippine Star, 03.10.2017).”
When acting Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo was asked whether he knew that President Duterte had such invitation for China “to visit our shores,” he said: “Well, I’m not aware of any. What I am definitely sure of is that China has reaffirmed that the Philippines has sovereign rights ( granted under UNCLOS in 2012) over the Benham Rise area (CNN Philippines, 03.17.2017).” Manalo said the DFA “sent China a note verbale either late last year or early this year requesting for information or clarification about the ship’s whereabouts and the nature of its activities (Ibid.).”
Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella clarified, “There was no exclusion, there was no conflict, it was just a question of referring to separate matters at the same time… they were both apprised. They were simply referring to different situations ( gmanetwork. 03.17.2017).”
What is the policy and direction versus China on territorial claims and incursions into territory?
On the first week of March, Energy and Natural Resources Secretary-designate Gina Lopez faced the Committee on Appointments (CA) for confirmation of her Cabinet position. Over 20 objectors to Lopez’s appointment focused on her closure, allegedly without due process, of 23 mining firms, and the cancellation of 75 mining production sharing agreements ( The Philippine Star 03.11.2017). Lopez explained that the closure of mines would not result in job losses that could adversely affect the lives of residents dependent on mining, and that there was a multi- agency plan for the P4-billion livelihood and rehabilitation plan for the mined-out areas (Ibid.).
The Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (CoMP) said Lopez failed to persuade and justify her side as she faced strong opposition from various groups from the business sector, the mining industry, indigenous peoples and CA members. Losses to the country would be $4 billion in annual revenue, $22 billion in investments, about $5 million in (direct) employment to a range of $10 million to include families affected (Ibid.). CoMP judged her “unfit and unqualified to be the government’s lead regulator in natural resource development ( Philippine Daily Inquirer, 03.09.2017).”
After Lopez’s roasting at the CA, President Duterte defended her. “All you (the mining industry) contribute to the country is about P70 billion in taxes,” he said. “We can live without it. I would rather follow Gina. Maghanap-buhay na lang tayo ng iba [ Let’s develop another industry], get the P70 billion somewhere else and preserve our environment. (CNN Philippines, 03.11.2017).”
President Duterte said he is considering imposing a total ban on mining (Rappler, 03.13.2017). He challenged all mining companies by singling out Emir Minerals to explain their degradation of the environment: “explain to me how is this? Tell me face to face here. What have you done to my country? If you don’t answer me, I will slap your face with this paper (Ibid.).”
What is the policy and direction on the mining industry versus the environment, and/or can these happily coexist in Duterte’s country?
The President also said he has information that mining companies are funding the “opposition” to “destabilize” the government. “I know mining is funding the opposition side... I know that some of you are giving money to destabilize [ the government], he said ( Ibid.).”
What is the policy and direction on destabilization of the government? Firstly, what is the definition of “destabilization?” Is it “opposition” or a contrary view to the Executive and Legislative majority’s policies and directions?
In just a few days more than a fortnight — Senator Leila de Lima was arrested (Feb. 24) for alleged involvement in the drug trade; the House Committee chairmanships were stripped from those legislators ( Feb. 27) who voted “No” to the revival of the death penalty ( rappler.com, 03.15.2017). Meantime, the “majority block” senators had an “intimate dinner with President Duterte (CNN Philippines 03.15.2017).” Sen. JV Ejercito said the 15 Senators discussed the proposed tax reform measure with Duterte, war on drugs, and Senator de Lima’s case (Ibid.). “Goes without saying the minority bloc was unwelcome company,” Rappler said (03.15.2017).
And when the Senate committees on public order and justice released a joint report saying the death of Albuera Mayor Rolando Espinosa, Sr. in custody of Philippine National Police (PNP) was premeditated by police forces, President Duterte bristled, “I don’t care even if it’s a thousand committees there. I insist on the truthfulness of police and I’ll defend them basta huwag lang iyong
abuso ( just no abuse of power) ( gmanewsonline, 03.14.2017).” Duterte had reinstated CIDG-8 head Supt. Marvin Marcos before Espinosa was killed, despite
dismissal by PNP chief Director General Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa ( Ibid). The Senate panel cautioned Duterte not to “micromanage issues (Ibid.).” Before a week of confusion on Benham Rise was over, Magdalo
Party- list Representative Gary Alejano filed an impeachment complaint against President Duterte at the House of Representatives “indicating a possible violation of the Constitution, engagement in bribery and ‘other high crimes’ under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Charter (philstar. com/ headlines, 03.17.2017).” “The impeachment complaint, however, is likely to be heavily opposed in a lower chamber controlled by a socalled supermajority allied to the President. At the voting on the revival of the death penalty last week, the majority had a commanding vote of 217 against 54 in favor of the controversial measure ( philstar.
com/ headlines, 03.16.2017).”
Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez immediately linked VicePresident Leni Robredo to the impeachment complaint against President Duterte, saying she is to benefit from this, and Alvarez is considering filing an impeachment case against her. The impeachable charge could be “betrayal of public trust, by her sending a video message to the United Nations criticizing President Duterte’s war on drugs, which has resulted in the killing of more than 7,000 suspects by lawmen and vigilantes ( philstar.com, 03 18.2017).”
It is clear: there is ONE voice for policies and directions, in his country.