Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Victory in Round 1 on the South China Sea arbitration, but not really a knockout

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Dr. Alfredo C. Robles, Jr.

Guest-Post-web

I’m posting this piece in the hope that it will be an input for the Philippines to Round 2 of the ongoing arbitration on the South China Sea. 

First a disclosure. This is written by my brother-in-law, the certified nerd in the family. He is a retired Professor of International Studies from De la Salle University. He holds two doctorates – a   Ph.D. in International and European Studies from the Université de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne) and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Syracuse University. He was asked at the last minute to be the interpreter for both French President François Hollande and Philippine President Benigno Aquino for their joint press conference at the presidential palace during Hollande’s visit last February.  In 2013, he was one of Metrobank Foundation’s 10 Outstanding Teachers. I forgot to say – when he graduated summa cum laude from the University of the Philippines, he broke the record then for having the highest grade point average. 

Most of all, he took the trouble to read ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS of the arbitration and the ENTIRE decision of the arbitral court in order to draw out the following implications of the decision to the Philippine case. Please note that the words highlighted in blue lead to links of the sources he is referring to. 

I know this is somewhat hard to read. It will remind you of your college. But do take the time out because it explains what the Philippines needs to do in Round 2, to achieve victory. 

The award (decision) issued by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Philippines v. China arbitration creates the impression that this was a knockout (as a reporter for the Philippine Daily Inquirer put it) for the Philippines because of the following reasons: the award was adopted unanimously; the Solicitor General declared that China’s preliminary objections have been eliminated ; and China rejected the award.

The award is undoubtedly a triumph for the Philippines, in that China’s preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which were intended to terminate the proceedings, failed to prevent the Tribunal from proceeding to the next phase, the merits phase. In the latter, the Tribunal will hear the arguments on the substantive issues over Submissions 3 (Scarborough Shoal generates no entitlement to an Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ or continental shelf), 4 (Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal and Subi Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, EEZ, or continental shelf), 6 (Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef, including Hughes Reef are low-tide elevations that do not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, EEZ or continental shelf), 7 (Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef and Fiery Cross Reef generate no entitlement to an EEZ or continental shelf), 10 (China has prevented Filipino fishermen from fishing at Scarborough Shoal) and 13 (China operates law enforcement vessels in a dangerous manner causing risk of collision to Philippine vessels in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal).

Nevertheless, the award does not represent a total victory for the Philippines. In the first place, the Philippines, as the award makes very clear, was opposed to the bifurcation – the separation into two phases (jurisdiction/admissibility and merits) – of the proceedings and wished to argue jurisdiction and merits at the same time, in part to save money, as the Solicitor General admitted in April 2014.  The holding of the hearings on jurisdiction and admissibility was not part of the Philippine strategy. More importantly, if we read the text of the award, or even just the summary , we realize that the Tribunal did not decide that it had jurisdiction on 8 of the 15 submissions by the Philippines, including the submission on the nine-dash line. Rather it asked the Philippines to clarify the content and narrow the scope of Submission 15 (China shall desist from further unlawful claims and activities) and decided that the preliminary objections to Submissions 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 14 do not possess an exclusively preliminary character. Consequently it postponed consideration of jurisdiction to rule on these submissions to the merits phase. This means that in the merits phase, the Tribunal could still decide that it has no jurisdiction to rule over these submissions and might therefore end up not ruling on them after all.

To understand the situation, we have to clarify the nature of preliminary objections. Settlement of international disputes by international courts is based on consent given by states parties to the dispute. A state may give its consent to have a dispute with another state submitted to an international tribunal in several ways, but when a dispute is actually submitted to a tribunal, it may nevertheless argue that it has not given its consent for that particular type of dispute. It will then challenge the jurisdiction – the power to hear and decide the case – of the tribunal by filing preliminary objections. The practice of international tribunals is to suspend the proceedings on the merits in order to rule on the preliminary objections.

There are three possible outcomes at this stage. The tribunal may decide to uphold the preliminary objections, in which case the proceedings are terminated. It may decide to reject them, in which case it will hear the merits. Finally, the Tribunal may decide that the objection to its jurisdiction does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. This third possibility arises when the questions raised by the objections and those arising on the merits are too intimately related and too closely interconnected for a court to be able to rule on the former without prejudging the latter. On the third and last day of the July 2015 hearings, the lawyers for the Philippines explicitly declared that there were no issues of jurisdiction or admissibility that had to be deferred to the merits phase.

The reason for this is understandable. As the great Italian jurist Roberto Ago  explained in 1975, joining the preliminary objections to the merits inevitably doubles the length of the proceedings, as the objections are argued twice – the first time, during the jurisdictional phase, and the second time during the merits phase. In the Nicaragua v. US case (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1984-91), the International Court of Justice postponed for consideration in the merits phase a US preliminary objection. During the merits phase, it upheld the preliminary objection, but found another basis for ruling on the case. In the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) case, the ICJ ruled in the jurisdiction and admissibility phase that a preliminary objection raised by Spain did not have an exclusively preliminary character (1964), only to uphold the preliminary objection six years later (1970), thus terminating the proceedings without a decision on the merits. This outcome was particularly galling for Spain, for it had been obliged to argue the preliminary objections from 1962 to 1964, and subsequently, the remaining preliminary objection, together with the merits, from 1964 to 1970.

If we now examine the Philippine submissions that in the Tribunal’s view, did not possess an exclusively preliminary character – Submissions 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 14 – we discover that they are among the most important of the Philippine submissions. Submissions 1 and 2 ask the Tribunal to declare that China’s claim to historic rights, as embodied in the nine-dash line, are invalid. According to the Tribunal, consideration of these two submissions would depend on the nature of China’s historic rights and examination of 2006 China’s Declaration  excluding jurisdiction over historic bays or titles. Hence they would have to be examined together with the merits. Submission 5 requests the Tribunal to declare that Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are part of the Philippine EEZ and continental shelf. Mischief Reef is 126 nautical miles, and Second Thomas Shoal 104 nautical miles, from the nearest point in Palawan. Since a coastal state has an entitlement to an EEZ and a continental shelf of 200 nautical miles from its baselines, the two are in theory within the Philippine EEZ and continental shelf. However, as the Tribunal pointed out, if it found that there were a Chinese island within 200 nautical miles of either of these two features, then the feature(s) would also be in the Chinese EEZ and continental shelf. The reason for this is that an island, like any other land territory, has an entitlement to a continental shelf and an EEZ. The Philippine and Chinese EEZs and continental shelves would overlap and thus have to be delimited – but maritime delimitation is excluded by the 2006 Chinese Declaration excluding certain types of disputes from compulsory dispute settlement entailing a binding decision. For the same reason, the Tribunal would be prevented from ruling on the eighth and ninth submissions, which complain about China’s interference with Philippine oil exploration, seismic surveys and fishing in what the Philippines claims to be its continental shelf and EEZ.

In Submission 12, the Philippines argues that China has violated its duties under the 1982 Convention by occupation, construction of artificial islands, installations and structures and damage to the marine environment on Mischief Reef, which in the Philippine view is a low-tide elevation. The latter is defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as “a naturally formed area of land which is surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide,” and does not generate entitlement to a territorial sea, EEZ or continental shelf. If the Tribunal found that Mischief Island is a rock or island and thus constitutes land territory, it would not have jurisdiction to consider whether China’s activities and appropriation were lawful, because disputes over military activities are excluded by China’s 2006 Declaration. The same reasoning would apply to Submission 14, which accuses China of aggravating and extending the dispute through its activities in and around Second Thomas Shoal (interfering with Philippine navigation, preventing the rotation and resupply of Philippine personnel and endangering their health and well-being).

If we consult the transcripts of the hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility held in July 2015, we realize that the Tribunal asked the Philippines questions on these points both before and during the hearings; moreover, it gave the Philippines the opportunity to reply to them in writing after the hearing. For example, as regards Submission 1, Judge Rúdiger Wolfrum, one of the five members of the Tribunal, asked the Philippines whether it would be first necessary to establish China’s entitlements under the 1982 Convention before it could be possible to determine that China’s claims exceeded those permitted by the Convention. Before the hearings, the Tribunal asked the Philippines with regard to submissions 5, 8 and 9, whether they presupposed a prior determination of sovereignty over any feature in dispute between the Philippines and China, which might have an entitlement to an EEZ that overlapped with the Philippine EEZ. In relation to Question 8, the Tribunal asked the Philippines about the implications, if any, of a continental shelf claim by China for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. If China could claim a continental shelf that overlapped with that of the Philippines, then the two continental shelves would have to be delimited – but maritime delimitation is excluded by China’s 2006 Declaration. The Tribunal also asked the Philippines, in relation to Submission 12, whether China’s activities in Mischief Reef could be covered by China’s Declaration, which also excluded military activities. Finally, as regards Submission 14, the Tribunal asked whether a military activity would cease to be a military activity if it concurrently served other purposes.

The fact that the Tribunal decided to postpone consideration of its jurisdiction on these submissions to the merits phase suggests that the Philippines, which did not want any issue to be deferred, was not able to provide entirely satisfactory answers to these questions. In the merits phase, therefore, the Philippines will again have to attempt to convince the Tribunal that it has jurisdiction over these submissions. Most, if not all, of the Philippine arguments on the merits have probably been ready for some time now, since the Philippines prepared its Memorial (the first written pleadings) on the assumption that there would be only one phase (jurisdiction and merits). The question that now arises is whether part of these arguments will have to be amplified or revised in light of the Philippines’ inability to convince the Tribunal that it had jurisdiction on these issues. We can only hope that the Philippine arguments on the merits will, in this phase, finally convince the Tribunal that it has jurisdiction over submissions 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 14. Otherwise the challenge to China’s nine-dash line and to certain Chinese activities in the South China Sea will have failed.

Comments

  1. American president? Poe camp reacts to Duterte (Rappler 11/20/15 5:21PM)

    “Icannot accept an

    AMERICAN PRESIDENT? POE CAMP REACTS TO DUTERTE (Rappler 11/20/15 5:21PM)

    “I cannot accept an American president.” This was how Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte expressed his disappointment over the decision of the SET on Poe’s citizenship issue.

    Stressing that the SET case is not a political issue but a constitutional issue, Duterte – who has been giving mixed signals about his 2016 plans – declared on Thursday night, November 19: “The option for me to run for president is already open”

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/113488-grace-poe-reaction-rodrigo-duterte

  2. KABABAYAN MAG-ISIP KA NG MABUTI

    Ang Mexico merong Nieto. Ang Canada mayroong Trudeau. Tapos iboboto mo si Binay?

    COME ON.

    Isa lang pwede tumapat- si Mar! LOL

  3. pumapapel na ang kampo poe-chiz sa APEC.

    sabi ni chiz dapat i audit ang expenses ng APEC. making loud and clear na sila na ang magiging bida sa legacy ni j. robledo ang “transparency and accountability” sabi ni gpl dapat daw ipaalam sa traopn,g bayan ang nagastos sa APEC. hehehehe

    IT expert ang asawa at anak daw ni gpl. ngayon tahol ng tahol ng tahol tungkol sa techno infrastructure bla bla bla… bakit hindi nya ginawa iyon pag kaupo na pagkaupo nya sa senado. GRACE POE bakit ngayon lang? aba feeling presidente na pag umaasta kayo kasama ang iyong bise….

    dahan dahan lang poe pagdating sa kurbada ng iyong daang tinatahak.

    • Siyempre nawala siya GPL sa limelight kaya gusto ngayon agawin ang credits kay President. Noy. I so pathetic!!!! Mayroon pa siyang infrastructure ek-ek.
      Please can we step up our efforts to campaign for Mar Leni?

  4. from rappler: Cayetano is deal breaker in 5-4 SET vote for Poe?

    “According to Rappler sources, Senator Pia Cayetano initially found Grace Poe’s submitted documents ‘messy’.”

    “According to a SET source, Senator Pia Cayetano was originally expected to vote against Poe.”

    If Cayetano stood by her earlier decision, the 5-4 vote could’ve unseated Poe as senator. But the first SET source said Cayetano must have decided instead to take a position that protects her adopted son Lucas, whom she found in 2011 at a children’s home.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————–
    ganito na ba kababa ang moralidad at IQ ng ating mga mambabatas? mambabatas bakit hindi sila gumawa ng nakararapat na batas?

    i read somewhere ( can’t recall now) na mayroong disqualification case din si p. cayetano re: no. of residency dahil iyong address na ginagamit nya ay condo unit ni lino cayetano. aside from p. cayetano mayroon din kaso ang asawa ni a. cayetano.

  5. Bum Aquino upheld GL’s position citing international laws which provide that foundlings are entitled to a nationality of the country where they are found.

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/290113553/Sen-Bam-Aquino-SET-Separate-Opinion

    But Bum Aquino disregarded same international laws which also provide that such nationality is granted IAW local laws. That local laws determine whether such foundling is NBFC or naturalized.

    It appears that Bum Aquino is expert only on international laws but ignorant on Philippine constitution and statutes. The 1935 constitution provides that the child of a known Filipino father regardless of the mother is NBFC. And the child of a known Filipino mother with foreign or unknown father is non-NBFC or merely naturalized after choosing Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

    Following the logic of Bum Aquino, the child of unknown Filipino mother is NBFC, while a child of a known Filipino mother is merely naturalized FC. This is grossly discriminatory, illogical and insane.

    NASAYANG ANG BOTO KO !!!

    • Hindi ito makalusot 3x sa comment ni YckiR. Subukan ko dito, baka sakali.

      Former Justices Melo, Davide and Romero were HRET members in 1997 but participated in the deliberations and voted accordingly in Libanan vs. HRET.

      • To Inhibit Or Not to Inhibit, that is the question.

        The rule (SEC. 1 Rule 137 Revised Rules of Court) mentions ‘x x x any inferior court x x x. ‘ It says:

        “No judge or judicial officer SHALL sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is RELATED to either party with the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, x x x or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has PRESIDED in any inferior court when his RULING or DECISION is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.”

        Is the SET tribunal an ‘inferior court’? No, it is not.

        Are the 3 justices in the SET ‘related’ to either party or counsel? No, there appears no facts that any of them are.

        Did the 3 justices together with the 6 Senators, ‘presided’ over the SET tribunal proceedings? No. The word ‘presided’ refers to a ‘one man-judge of an inferior court.’ In the SET tribunal there are 9 Members who presides.

        Did the 3 justices render a ‘decision’ or ‘ruling’ subject of a review by any of the parties? No, it is the ‘ruling’ or ‘decision’ of the 6 Senators. What the 3 justices have only done is their respective ‘dissenting OPINIONS’ which are not ‘rulings’ or ‘decision’ under SEC. 1 Rule 137.

        Thus, should any of the 3 justices inhibit if or when the GPL case is before the SC? From the above answers, No.

        Who SHOULD therefore inhibit? The answer is: the 6 Senators if and when a motion for reconsideration is filed by a party to ‘to review’ the 6 Senators’ ‘ruling’ or ‘decision’.

        Then, WHO should review the ‘ruling’ or the ‘decision’ of the SET tribunal? The 3 JUSTICES only! The 6 Senators should inhibit from reviewing their own ruling or decision.

        SEC. 1 Rule 137 is clear on that.

    • It was a bum vote! . . . hehe

      I honestly do not remember if he got my vote but if he did. . . he returned it in a bum bot! hehe

      Bum bum!

    • Why do we expect too much from a politician? Win or lose, GPL’s case will go up to the SC. If GPL will get a favorable result ang resulta sa senador na nagturn down ay tyak na negatibo dahil mauupo si GPL as president (more likely scenario).

      BUT If GPL loses the case in the SC then those who favored her at SET would still have the graces of pinoy voters who love FPJ and GPL.

      Win-win sa sa mga senador na nag thumbs up sa simula pa lang. Katuwiran nila ay ibigay na lamang sa SC ang desisyon. Bilang mga pulitiko ay nasa isip nila na madali naman makalimutan ng mga tao yang isyu na yan kaya panalo ang future nila, panalo sila.

  6. THE ESCUDERO GAMBIT

    The swipe made by political newbie Grace Poe Llamanzares against Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on clearly a question of Constitutional issue has reached a new height of hypocrisy on the part of some of our politicians.

    It is a surgical move of the GPL camp to provoke Justice Carpio into responding in kind to lay the groundwork for asking Justice Carpio and the other two SC justices in the SET to inhibit themselves should the question of GPL’s citizenship reached the Supreme Court, which is very likely to happen.

    That is also why Escudero has also been working the press suggesting that the three justices ought to inhibit themselves from the likelihood of hearing the GPL citizenship issue at the Supreme Court.

    Justice Carpio did the right thing in not responding to GPL’s provocation, and playing into her and Escuderos’s political cards.

    Sakim!

    • @yvonne: “Justice Carpio did the right thing in not responding to GPL’s provocation, and playing into her and Escuderos’s political cards.”

      I absolutely agree you, the GPL’s camp is laying down the trap (provocation) to catch Justice Carpio and the other two SC justices into an “inhibition” corner in the event the GPL citizenship issue is tossed into the SC court.

      I think it’s best for Justice Carpio and the two others to actualize the saying “Speech is silver, silence is golden.”

      • I believe Justice Carpio is in the Netherlands right now preparing for the defense of the West Philippine Sea arbitration.

        No, I think MGL’s attacks on the integrity and competence of Justice Carpio is really covertly aimed at the remaining Justices of the Supreme Court….

        Why would you carp against someone who will not be able to defend himself because he’s in abroad busy preparing and working for the best interest of our country?

        • GPL has been taking swipes at Justice Carpio even before the SET issued its decision, starting when Justice Carpio expressed his opinion at the SET hearing that GPL should be considered a naturalized Filipino citizen.

        • GPL is a politician. Her actions are understandable. But Carpio is a veteran in his own league. It is foolish for GPL to underestimate him.

    • Napakasakit lang isipin na ang mga senador na gumagawa ng batas ang siyang hindi kumikilala sa batas…tsk tsk tsk

    • Your theory implies that Escudero’s theory has sound basis .

      In any case, in so far as the true objective of Carpio- Mar Roxas – The Firm, et al, is concerned, the damage is already done.

    • Some SC justices who were members of electoral tribunals did not inhibit themselves when the case reached the SC. I believe Justice Carpio, et. al. will do likewise to prevent triumph of evil.

  7. Partidong Puso at Galing…Walang Maiiwan

    Lagi na lang ginagamit ni GL ang mga “foundling”. Kesyo pag na DQ daw siya ay magiging 2nd class citizen ang mga foundling.
    Pero teka muna, hindi ba binalak ni GL na talikuran at iwanan ang mga foundling noong nagpa DNA test siya? Paano kaya kung naging positibo ang resulat ng DNA? Ano naman kaya ang sasabihin niya sa mga foundlings?

    Si Keso naman, na kesyo pag na DQ daw si GL, mawawalan daw ng karapatan ang mga foundling na maging doktor, nurse..etc…
    ang babaw naman.

    Pinagpipilitan din na si GL daw ay isang OFW…
    Excuse me…kaming mga OFW ang gamit namin Philippine Passport. Nakarehistro din kami sa POEA at member ng OWWA. Tuwing umuuwi kami, kumukuha kami ng OEC bago makabalik sa lugar na aming pinagtatrabahuhan bilang OFW.

    Sana naman tigilan na ang panggagamit sa mga foundling at OFW. Sobrang pagiging opurtunista na.

  8. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SENATOR MEMBERS OF THE SET

    Your decision favoring Grace Poe Llamanzares on the issue of natural born Filipino citizenship did not surprise me. The Senate is known to be very protective of its members, and members of the ruling party do not want to be seen as ganging-up on GPL for political reasons.

    It is your prerogative to decide the way you did – but please do not be hypocrites and do not insult our capacity to see beyond the fog of politics.

    Please do not say that you decided on the basis of your moral conviction or your desire to respect the will of the people. There is no better reflection of your moral conviction, or shall I say – of your moral decay, than your failure to uphold the law. And shame on us that we refer to you as lawmakers, not as lawbreakers.

    There is no better reflection of the “will of the people” that those already embodied in our Constitution. If I were to use your misguided concept of “will of the people” I would argue that we allow President Aquino to run for a second term and let the “will of the people” run its course. But we cannot do that, and I have no doubt that you will be amongst the first to shout that it is “unconstitutional!”

    So please don’t be hypocrites. And don’t mislead the people. If you really have any moral ascendancy and respect for the law you could advocate for a constitutional amendment to declare all foundlings to be declared natural born Filipino citizens. That is the right thing to do. But in the meantime, you must uphold our Constitution.

    Yes, I’m disappointed at your decision but I take comfort in knowing that the Supreme Court justices in the SET voted 3-0 in favor of upholding the Constitution. The justices decided according to law, you decided according to your political persuasions. But the writing on the wall is clear for Grace Poe Llamanzares – the fight is not yet over and the real battleground will be at the Supreme Court. Think about it: so far it is 3-0.

      • Sa boto ng SET para pigilin ang inihaing DQ case laban kay GL, lumalabas na si Sen. Bam Aquino na member ng LP, ang nagbigay ng ‘swing vote’. Siguro, panahon na na dapat itiwalag si Bam Aquino ng LP dahil ipinakita na niya ang tunay na kulay niya sa pagkatig kay GL. Anong malay natin, baka nag-eespiya na siya sa campo ng LP para iparating sa campo ni GL ang mga ginagawang estratehiya ng LP para manalo si Mar Roxas.

        Ang turing ko sa Senado ng Pilipinas ngayon ay “Anything Goes” Senate, ni wala silang Ethics Committee, mga CVs ng ilang mga miyembro pinipeke, ang isa nagtatalumpati ng plagiarized speech. Ni wala ni isang Kagalangg-galang (ito ang gusto nilang itawag sa kanila ng taongbayan) na miyembro nila na nae-escandalo dito sa situasyong ito. So, “Anything Goes”. Bobotantes, please wake up from your deep slumber!

        • Is Bam Aquino a cousin or a brother to PNOY? He is a look – alike of Ninoy. Pardon me, if I dig something private.
          Is there a secret sweetheart deal between Aquinos and GPL that is unknown to the public?
          Anything that smells fishy is that, it is rotten fishy.
          That ‘s why we can all scream all we want about the SET and nothing makes any difference because it is all planned and SET that way,, to the left.

          Parekoy, pasko , wala ka pang inside info, yuhoo where are you?

        • The Aquinos are a traditional political family–better than most, one may argue, but nonetheless a political family that has to consider the practicalities of life after the 2016 election. They must be mindful of possible nuisance lawsuits, and revenge gambits by opponents past and future. Like everyone else, from Duterte to the businessmen who as a matter of course provide campaign funding for the top candidates (spreading their bets), the Aquinos are watching the surveys, and basing their next moves on ongoing developments.

          If I were an experienced and pragmatic political player, the strong showing of GPL and Chiz would indicate that it is time for me to buy insurance to safeguard my political/economic future. Possibly there was a tipping point at which the Aquinos decided that they, represented by Bam, would extend a large political favor through the SET vote, as post-election insurance. (While desperately trying to keep the fig leaf of morality in place by saying one should vote based on principle, not politics, blah blah.) Should the lead of GPL/CE hold strong or expand further, the Aquinos may back them all the way.

          This scenario is not based on any insider knowledge; I have none. One just has to follow Philippine political logic and history. Recall 2010, when Teodoro was ostensibly the chosen successor of GMA; it’s pretty clear now that it was really Villar. OK, that may have been GMA’s intent from the beginning. There are no real friends in politics. But Noynoy and Mar know each other and their families well. MR has been made a sacrificial pawn more than once before. So this may not come as a total surprise among players in the tight little rigodon of Philippine political families.

        • Thank you. Your outside information is perfectly plausible. To look after my own turf and interests when I lose my power, immunity and authority therefore I placed safety nets and barriers against future risks is very sane, self human nature indeed.

          I have to add perhaps future lawsuits and legal complaints/issues against when the government was grossly negligent and ignorant obviously intentionally or not as to checking / verification of GPL QUALIFICATIONS AT THE START IN THE FIRST PLACE , rebounding to the office of the DFA and the NB of Immigration where such checks for thorough legal and personal information should be carefully screened, despite that she was a non govt official at that time yet.

          On a different scenario, do you know that NBC of some rich Arab countries are the luckiest, well in financial term, for they received check/allowance stipends from their govt all their life? Of course there are restrictions applied. They don’t work like us,but they put up businesses and hire our local OFWS. My point is, if this beautiful scenario exists in the PH, oh boy, the SET and SC would be overwhelmed with cases and lawsuits for claims of qualifications, reverses and legalities of proving NBC for material , financial gain. So this, money and position are like fraternal twins. They are alike but not in so many ways.

          Anyway, with how things and global events are going we may even be surprised if there will be an election in the country or even in the US. People are acting funny and strange, gone are the days of great leaders and today we see a lot of ” banana argument ” EPALISM, POEISM, CHIZM, DUTERTE-ISM ——ISM ( I, Self, Me (recovery) WIKI.

        • If this is the case and the discerning tuwid na daan voters determine that there is truly a game of thrones where these leaders are role playing and the intention of the argument between conscience against following the LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION is just for show, I won’t be surprise if they turn around and vote for Duterte now that he is seriously running. Indeed, two players can play the game and what a game it would be if he takes over the survey and finally wins, hahhaha. I would like to see the twisted grin of the Una sa survey Mula sa puso candidates. Although , I concede that it’s the voters who decide but GIVEN THE CHANCE OF A GOOD FIGHT DUTERTE IS ALSO A CONSIDERABLE FORCE FOR A PISSED POPULACE.

          “For Brutus is an honorable man; So are they all, honorable men.” Be aware!

          Let the arguments begin .

        • Earlier this year, people looking for Anybody but Binay and Anybody But Marcos gravitated to either GPL or MR. Personally, am hoping that a nascent Anybody Nut Chiz impetus takes hold (because with a GPL win, Chiz would be effectively running the country). The Pissed-Off-Party of Duterte would be a counterbalance to the current swing towards GPL/CE. Depressing that so much of the selection process for the Executive branch is based on negatives (not-this, not-that, just pick the best of the worst), but there it is.

          You are right, gone are the days of great leaders. Not least because few can stand up to 24/7 online scrutiny, navigate the minefield of competing sectors (esp with the growing assertiveness of civil society through different media) and deal with regional/global challenges all at once, while sending out a clear and unifying message. How many Merkels come along in a century?

          So far, of the candidates, Duterte has shown better situational awareness and sends out clearer messages. But this will be a long and tiring campaign season.

        • Sen. Bam Bam A! . . . is a cousin yata. . . anak ni Paul A!. . . latter kapatid ni Sen. Boots A! . . . who is kapatid ni Sen. Ninoy A! . . . tatay ni PNoy A!

          . . . there is a sweetheart secret deal. . .’bury me when my knee is broken.’

        • Ang boto sa SHET = senate heck electoral tribunal.

          Shetnate

          Pooriticians

          Louse of Representathieves

          Hey! Let’s Grind ’em!

    • Permission to post this on the FB of the senators concerned specially Sen Bam “conscience” Aquino

      • Bam Atquinod is playing dirty politics already… sayang akala ko sya na ang pag-asa ng mga kabataan. isip bata pa pala are. Ibinoto ko pa naman.

    • 2nd try
      (makalusot kaya etong papuri?)

      Nice one @yvonne! palakpak 3x

      You wrote it with passion and conviction. And the narrative is par excellence!

  9. Poe said she wonders why there are magistrates who defend the country’s claims in the West Philippine Sea using international conventions while pushing for international customary law to disqualify her.

    “Yung mga taong nagtutulak na magkaroon ng territorial integrity sa West Philippine Sea, ano ba ginagamit nila?” she asked.

    Asked specifically if she was referring to Carpio, who is a staunch defender of the West Philippine Sea, Poe said: “Siya nga.”

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/19/15/poe-chides-justice-carpio-for-set-vote

    Muntik na akong mabilaukan dito sa parallelism na ginamit na Grace Poe. Kung ito magiging Presidente natin, we can kiss our territories goodbye because of this reasoning.

    Of course, we are in dispute with other countries in regards to territories kaya ang applicable is international laws.

    But on the other hand, her citizenship issue is another case, it’s local, so local laws apply.

    • Muntik na akong mabilaukan dito sa parallelism na ginamit na Grace Poe.

      Breath deeply muna @BFD.

      :-)

    • baka ang nasa isip nya ay dual citizen sya kaya puede na din i apply sa kanya iyong international law kagaya sa wps.

      ako iyong nabilaukan. lesson for the day: hwag kakain o iinom habang bumabasa pag ang topic ay si poe poe at chizwizz. dalawang bagay lang yan. mabilaukan kayo sa kanilang ka paul paulan ( sorry parekoy pahiram ng iyong new vocab) o matapon ang inyong hawak na pagkain dahil sa pagkairita o hb

    • Can we call it escudero doctrine that “the three justices who voted in favor of the disqualification case against Senator Grace Poe can no longer participate when the issue is elevated at the Supreme Court because doing so would be a violation of due process, Senator Francis Escudero said on Thursday”

      Art. 111, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Where did chiz get the idea that participation of the 3 SC justices would violate the due process of law if the DQ case is elevated to the SC?

      Moreover, “Five senators in the SET hold the view that a convention to which the Philippines is not even a signatory can override a clear definition by the Constitution of who a natural-born Filipino citizen is.” (Postcript by Federico Pascual of Philstar 11/19/15 titled “SET ruling not based on law but on politics”)
      http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2015/11/19/1523492/set-ruling-not-based-law-politics

      • On the questions
        a) who a natural born citizen is and
        b) PH applicabilty of customary international law such as the UN Convention on Statelessness,
        I personally subscribe to the position of former SC CJ Art Panganiban, former SC CJ Renato Puno, former Senator Rene Saguisag, Atty. Franklin Tan, and President Benigno Aquino III. I do not think Federico Pascual’s position measures up in terms of substantiation. Not to mention credibilty.

        • The team Poe-Escu should ask/pray for more wisdom when they answer ambush interviews, akin to Poe’s wish during her last birthday that she be given more wisdom – lest they sink more into quagmire of inconsistencies/irrelevance that showcase their level of intelligence and ability to govern.

      • Another “skewedero” opinion. Being a lawyer, you should know that justices decide only on the basis on the provisions of law.

    • Dumale na naman si Keso. Lawyering for GL pero nakalimutan nya ata na mas magaling si Atty. Google

      1946 Jurisprudence G.R. No. L-543 – Vera Vs. Avelino
      DoubleUDoubleUDoubleU.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1946/aug1946/gr_l-543_1946.html

      a. Justices in the Electoral Tribunals

      xxx During our deliberations, it was remarked that several justices subscribing the majority opinion, belong to the electoral tribunals wherein protests connected with the Central Luzon polls await investigation. Mulling over this, we experience no qualmish feelings about the coincidence. Their designation to the electoral tribunals deducted not a whit from their functions as members of this Supreme Court, and did not disqualify them in this litigation. Nor will their deliverances here at on a given question operate to prevent them from voting in the electoral forum on identical questions; because the Constitution, establishing no incompatibility between the two roles, naturally did not contemplate, nor want, justices opining one way here, and thereafter holding otherwise, pari materia, in the electoral tribunals, or vice-versa.

      Na muling pinagtibay at nilinaw ng SC:

      1997 Jurisprudence G.R. No. 129783 – Libanan Vs. HRET
      DoubleUDoubleUDoubleU.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/dec1997/gr_129783_1997.html

      xxx On other important point. Regarding the membership of certain Justices of this Court in the HRET and their participation in the resolution of the instant petition, the Court sees no conflict at all, and it, therefore, rejects the offer of inhibition by each of the concerned justices. As early as Vera vs. Avelino, this Court, confronted with a like situation, has said unequivocally:

      . . . “Mulling over this, we experience no qualmish feelings about coincidence. Their designation to the electoral tribunals deducted not a whit from their functions as members of this Supreme Court, and did not disqualify them in this litigation. Nor will their deliverances hereat on a given question operate to prevent them from voting in the electoral forum on identical questions; because the Constitution, establishing no incompatibility between the two roles, naturally did not contemplate, nor want, justices opining one way here, and thereafter holding otherwise, pari materia, in the electoral tribunal, or vice-versa.”

      • if indeed, the SC rejects the offer of inhibition of justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion when the QW case is elevated to SC.

        Paktay kang bata ka… baka hindi na iyak-iyakan ang gawin ni GL kundi maglupasay na.

        Ika nga ni @kalakala Ang Dakilang Balatkayo

        • @yckir hindi parin maalis ang aking pangamba pag nasa sc. baka magkaroon ng another batch of otso otso. lets do the math. sino sino kaya ang madagdag sa 3 SET justices?

        • @kalakala
          Sa palagay ko naman, sa pagkakataong ito ay paiiralin ng mga kagalang-galang na “S.C. Justices” ang kanilang pagiging pantas sa usaping legal. At kung pagbabatayan natin kung paano bumoto sina Justices Carpio, Brion at De Castro, malamang ay ganun din ang magiging senaryo sa S.C. Hindi naman siguro papayag ang mga “SC Justices” na matatak sa isipan ng mga tao na mas marurunong pa ang mga Senadores kaysa sa kanila pagdating sa usaping “Legal” at interpretasyon ng Saligang Batas.

          Kung sakali naman at magkaron ng “split decision”, at sa tanong mo na “sino-sino ang kaya ang madadagdag sa 3 SET justices?” Siguro magandang tingnan natin ang komposisyon ng kasalukuyang mga nkaupo sa S.C.

          Pnoy appointees:
          1.CJ Lourdes Sereno
          2.AJ Bienvenido Reyes
          3.AJ Estela Perlas-Bernabe
          4.AJ Marvic Leonen
          5.AJ Francis Jardeleza

          At kung aabutin ang kaso hanggang sa pagreretiro ni AJ Martin Villarama sa January 16, 2016. Malamang maging 6 ang Pnoy appointees.

          Non Pnoy appointees or the infamous Otso-otso gang minus Brion and De Castro
          1.Lucas Bersamin
          2.Presbitero Velasco Jr.
          3.Diosdado Peralta
          4.Mariano del Castillo
          5.Jose Perez
          6.Jose Mendoza – *Swing Vote ( He voted against the issuance of TRO on the travel ban on ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo)

          Kung sakali naman at “out of delicadeza” ay mag “inhibit” ang 3 SET Justices, 7 is the lucky number.

        • Former Justices Melo, Davide and Romero were HRET members in 1997 but participated in the deliberations and voted accordingly in Libanan vs. HRET.

        • In Libanan vs. HRET Justices Davide, Romero and Melo were members of HRET. Nonetheless, all of them participated in the deliberation of the case and voted accordingly. Thus, Justices Carpio, Brion and de Castro must participate in the SC deliberation of GL’s case if only to rectify the shameless deed by the SET majority in trashing the constitution.

      • Cited jurisprudence not pertinent to legal subject at hand. Senator Escudero is talking about :

        ““Hindi na kailangang hilingin pa dahil nga prinsipyo ‘yun sa due process na hindi pwede at tama nanire-review mo ang sarili mong decision,” he further said.
        Escudero said the same rule would apply even if the three justices voted against Poe’s disqualification from the Senate.”

        • Well @parengtony,
          Let’s just wait if and when this case at bar is elevated to the S.C.

          Cheers!!!

      • Thanks you for the jurisprudence you cited.

        I believe there is really no need to inhibit for the three SC justices. It is entirely possible that they would reverse their position during the SC deliberations IAW the pleadings of the parties.

        Indeed, the three SC justices, in reviewing their own decision, could change their position in regard to the MR to be filed by petitioner David.

      • Thank you for the jurisprudence you cited.

        I believe there is really no need to inhibit for the three SC justices. It is entirely possible that they would reverse their position during the SC deliberations IAW the pleadings of the parties.

        Indeed, the three SC justices, in reviewing their own decision, could change their position in regard to the MR to be filed by petitioner David.

        Reply

  12. from inquirer:
    Poe hits Carpio for being selective in using international laws

    lumakas na ang loob ang tapang kalabanin si sc justice carpio. ang laki na ng ulong puno ng hangin.

    • Probably emboldened by latest Pulse Asia survey wherein she is preferred by 39 percent of voters over Binay who got 24 percent and Roxas’ 21 percent.
      One can always console himself by saying that they are just surveys. To his own peril.
      Denial stage ba. Which is very counter productive.
      The best attitude is to confront reality, not deny it.
      Mar can still win, although highly improbable.
      Review the result of surveys in 2010 elections and you can draw conclusions.
      Poe’s rating now is same as Pnoy ratings in 2010.
      His opponents who dismissed that survey ended jup eating the dust as PNoy won handily.
      I am for RoRo but unless a dramatic turnaround occurs, the game is over.

      • masakit ang sinabi mo kasi ro-ro din ako ngunit kailangan tingnan at suriin dahil nakikita ko rin at pinangangambahan ang iyong pahayag. narinig sa radyo nung dalawa kong kapatid na mga ro-ro din yung “interview” kay mar at pareho ang kanilang sabi na si mar ay marunong at maalam ngunit hindi makapagpahayag ng kanyang isipin na makakaakit sa karamihan. diyos ko po. nakatapat pa naman niya ay isang madulas ang dila at napakadaling magpaikot-ikot ng sasabihin. .

        • Mahalaga na may prinsipyong dinadala si RoRo at yan ang daang matuwid. Subalit ang halalan ay katulad ng digmaan na ang binibilang ay tagumpay at hindi kabiguan.
          Tagumpay kahit sa anong pamamaraan?
          Dapat lamang kung ang kapalit naman ay ang pagsulong ng isang dakilang prinsipyo
          Ang punto, gumamit ng taktika na matagumpay namang ginagamit ng kaaway.
          Ang mahalaga siguro ay manalo. Muna. Pagkatapos ay ilatag ang tunay na prinsipyo.

        • Similar to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s famous quote “In war, there’s no substitute for victory” and I’m confident the Team Mar-Len – with their formidable LP/govt machinery and bottomless war chest, won’t allow victory to slip out of their firm grasp at the hands of a former American whose loyalty to the Motherland is questionable..

        • @dalisay parang ganito lang yan. iyong isang dalaga ay maganda tingnan kasi ang ganda ng kanyang make up. iyong isa ay walang make-up. kaya mas makaakit sya ng marami. pero at the long end iyong may make up ay BALATKAYO nagtatago sa likod ng make up.

          i read somewhere na iyong ginawa ni bam aquino ay patunay na hindi ang lp ang nasa likod ng mga complaints against mgl.

          hope you don’t mind prayer is our best weapon.

    • Eto yung link.

      http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/740919/poe-hits-sc-justice-carpio-for-being-selective-in-using-international-laws

      The citizenship of GPL is not the real issue because she is really NBFC. The real issue is her residency which will be decided by the COMELEC first and SC later on purely legal considerations. Indeed, the SET case, where the lone issue is citizenship, was decided by the senators on political and personal co side rations.

      So it does not matter whether GPL gets 50% in the surveys and the rest is apportioned to Binay, Roxas and Santiago. The real and ONLY issue is whether GPL would be a LEGAL RESIDENT of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding the presidential elections on May 9, 2015.

      The remaining question : “When will GPL’s bubble burst?”

    • GPL is surely losing her marbles. What has International maritime law got to do with her citizenship and residency status? When one deals with international matters one considers international law. When one considers internal Philippines matters one considers Philippine law which is the constitution.
      In the real (not movie scripted) world GPL has not proven that she is a NBPC. It’s pretty basic. SC, “Hello Mrs. Llamanzares would you please tell us the name of your mother and father?”. GPL, “Oh, sorry I don’t know.” SC, “Goodbye”.

    • MGL has no right to question Justice Carpio. She is sobrang babaw to compare to him. Sobrang lumaki na nga ang ulo. Naging popular lang dahil sa amang si Fernando Poe na yumaman lang dahil sa mahihirap. Kasi kung walang mahihirap na tinangkilik ang pelikula ng ama ni MGL, siguro wala din ang pamilyang Poe. I doubt kung yong mga filipino elite families ay manunuod ng pelikula ni Fernando Poe. Kaya ang tingin ko, kung ano man meron ang pamilyang Poe ngayon, yan ay mula sa mahihirap, na ang pinaghirapang kinita ay ipinanunuod lamang ng pelikula ni Fernando Poe. Ang tanong ko, ano ba ang naitulong ng pamilya Poe sa mahihirap?