Reason & Concern

Ronquillo C. Tolentino

Arbitration Tribunal, At Last

Finally, after two years of manifesting patience and exhaustion of political and diplomatic remedies, the Philippine government had elevated to the United Nations for arbitration the West Philippine Sea issue with China.

The Department of Foreign Affairs had counted 15 protests against China for what it perceived as “incursions into the disputed waters”. Early on, the Philippines had, to my mind, considered conciliation. Now, it has resorted to compulsory arbitration.

A distinction had been made by former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga in his book Public  International Law   between arbitration and conciliation when he said that under conciliation, the parties are not bound to  adopt the proposals for a settlement which are suggested to them whereas in arbitration a legal obligation exists to comply with the award of the arbitrator. Arbitration is a judicial process, while conciliation is essentially a bargaining process, Salonga asserted.

The arbitration shall be in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty.

Hopefully, the Philippines and China shall have nominated their representatives to the five-member arbitration panel so that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea can start with the arbitration process.

While the Philippines had earlier protested certain incidents in the  West Philippine Sea involving China such as “sea patrols, oil exploration, military exercises, and the establishment of a Chinese administrative unit to govern all of the disputed Spratly islands”, the Philippine protest had fallen into China’s deaf ears. Hence, the resort through compulsory arbitration.

Rather than issue belligerent statements that may be misconstrued as an invitation to a show of military force, the Philippines had maintained its composure. On this matter, the Philippine government had shown its adherence to Article II, Sec. 2 of the Philippine Constitution which states: “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

Political Dynasty

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) had issued a pastoral statement against political dynasties. Let us see whether Congress shall wake up from its more than Rip Van Winkle slumber on the CBCP pastoral statement and consider an enabling law banning political dynasties.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano’s privilege speech aimed at Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile had affected the dignity and stature of the Philippine Senate as an institution. 

As I listened to the privilege speech of Senator Cayetano, I was thinking of having it titled similar to that rock n’ roll song of the late fifties titled: “One for the money, two for the show”!

(Let the dismantling political dynasty start in Aklan by self restrain.) /MP