Arroyo resolution critics utterly mistaken

I do not find surprising that a resolution filed by senior deputy speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo seeking "unequivocal support" by the House of Representatives for former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte in the case the International Criminal Court is bent on pursuing against him over alleged extrajudicial killings would stir a virtual hornet’s nest.

Both Arroyo, herself a former president, and Duterte have their own set of critics who are either ready, able, and willing to bring about their shame and downfall or simply to partake of the action, finding in it a fashionable use of their otherwise unproductive time. In both their terms, they had been shakers and shapers. So the wake from their passage is still understandably strong.

What I find amusing, if only it were not a stark reflection of the depths to which we have sunk as a nation not only in our way of thinking but also in the way we pursue those thoughts, are the reasons shoring up much of the criticisms. Most, if not all, of the opposition to the resolution are based on a complete failure to understand the proposal.

First and foremost in the utter meltdown of appreciation is the notion that Duterte must be defended. Defense is not the sense of the proposal. What Arroyo clearly seeks is the "unequivocal support" of the House, not unconditional defense. Just as unequivocal and unconditional are different, so are support and defense not the same.

In other words, all Arroyo and the 18 other congressmen who joined her are seeking is the sentiment of the House. Apparently, the critics, in their knee-jerk reaction, completely missed the fact that a House resolution, if adopted, does not carry with it the weight and force of law. It is what it is, just a sentiment. What it does though is send a clear and loud message of solidarity.

What is even funnier, or maybe sadder, is that some have actually gone beyond themselves to put the cart before the horse. There is nothing in the proposed Arroyo resolution that seeks to allocate government funds to defend Duterte. Where that idea came from I do not know. What I know is it could not have come from those who actually read the resolution because it is not there.

Contrary to the criticisms, there is so much sense in the resolution. It does not seek to pass judgment on Duterte as that is beyond the ambit of the House. Duterte can be as guilty as hell, as what his critics would swear, but that cannot stop the House nor make it illegal for it to express solidarity with him in a clear case of foreign meddling in our sovereignty.

The ICC has no legal and moral right to interfere in our working judicial process not only because the Philippines has ceased to be a member thereof (okay the case can be made that Duterte instigated our withdrawal) but more importantly because it simply does not have a case. The only evidence it has are news reports and therefore are no more than hearsay.

If indeed there is any intent to defend anyone or anything in the Arroyo resolution, it is to defend Philippine sovereignty, protect its dignity, preserve its integrity and uphold its rights as a nation on equal footing and in good standing with the rest of the world. If the ICC wants to prop up its image of ineffectual existence, please not at our expense.

“If indeed there is any intent to defend anyone or anything in the Arroyo resolution, it is to defend Philippine sovereignty.”