An exercise in futility

THE trio of ex-Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio, ex-Foreign secretary Albert “Super Amboy” del Rosario and ex-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Yellowtards all, insists on having the Permanent Court of Arbitration ( PCA) ruling on the territorial disputes in the South China Sea brought up before the forthcoming 75th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session.

They cite the action taken by the UNGA on the Nicaragua-United States dispute where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided (on June 27, 1986) “that the United States had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua’s harbors.”

The ICJ is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction “by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the court.”

Judgments rendered by the court (or by one of its chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Judgments are final and without appeal.

When the court decided in favor of Nicaragua, the US refused to comply with its decision.

Nicaragua then went to the United Nations Security Council, which, however, was deterred from making a decision due to the US veto.

As a last resort, Nicaragua filed a resolution in the UN General Assembly where the vast majority decided in favor of Nicaragua.

Although an UNGA resolution has no binding effect unlike a Security Council decision, the US was, nonetheless, compelled to abide by the court’s decision for fear of being considered a pariah in the community of nations.

In the case brought before the PCA at The Hague by the Philippines against China’s claim over nearly the entire South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea, the PCA rendered a decision that was terribly flawed. It accepted and decided on the case without either the agreement or participation of China. Arbitration, by definition, must be agreed upon by both parties — both in its submission to and acceptance of the decision by an arbitral body.

There is, therefore, no basis for comparison between the Nicaragua-US case and the one involving China and the Philippines.

It will be noted that the vast majority of the community of nations have not expressed one way or the other their position on the PCA ruling. Only the US and its cohorts in the Group of Seven countries, and Australia, have expressed support for it.

In my considered opinion, bringing up the PCA decision before the UNGA would not only be an exercise in futility, but also cause us undue embarrassment. And, as I have said often enough, we should not underestimate China’s influence over the vast number of Third World countries in the UN.

Duque and delicadeza

Besieged by calls for his resignation due to alleged incompetence and corruption, Health Secretary Francisco Duque 3rd asked: “What else do I have to prove?”

The answer is pretty simple: prove that you have a sense of delicadeza!

As for President Rodrigo “Digong”

Duterte’s insistence that Duque still has his trust and confidence, please listen to what the people say. Besides, the “whiff” of corruption surrounding Duque is now a stench, especially after the Senate said he “should be held liable for malversation of public funds as defined under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.”

Locsin on US stand on Sabah

On July 27, 2020, Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro “Tweeterboy” Locsin Jr. threatened the US Embassy for its tweet referring to “Sabah, Malaysia.”

“Sabah is not in Malaysia if you want to have anything to do with the Philippines,” Tweeterboy boldly retweeted.

I wonder...whatever was the reaction of the US to his threat? Words are cheap!

Instead, Locsin even started parroting the US on its moves against China.

Marcos electoral protest vs Robredo

For two successive weeks, I wrote about the extensive delay

äArcilla