TO ME, it’s funny that the survey conducted by one of the leading survey groups in the country came out with a story that said the people are satisfied with the programs and projects of President Arroyo, but they dislike the President herself.

I find this strange, if not altogether incredible, because if the people themselves like the projects of the President, I can’t see why they should dislike her. If the survey is true, why should people who look positively at the President’s projects also think negatively of her? There seems to be no logic in these conflicting situations. Maybe the findings by Social Weather Stations (SWS) are again the products of double-edged questions being asked of an innocent and unsuspecting public.

****

Now comes former senator Franklin Drilon who claims that the memorandum of agreement (MOA) signing in Kuala Lumpur between the Philippine peace panel and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) group, had it not been stopped by the Supreme Court, would have constituted an impeachable offense by the President. Maybe Typhoon Frank was jumping into conclusions without having properly analyzed the MOA, which was to be signed on August 4.

I would like to invite the attention of Mr. Drilon to Section 2, Article 11 of the Constitution that says that the grounds for impeachment are 1) culpable violation of the Constitution; 2) treason; 3) bribery; 4) graft and corruption; 5) other high crimes, and 6) betrayal of public trust. Nothing in these specific provisions of the Constitution can be considered against the President insofar as the so-called MOA between the MILF and the Philippine peace panel is concerned. Besides, the Oppap (Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process) has been thoroughly briefed by the Cabinet Cluster and Security before they left for Kuala Lumpur, and for the information of Mr. Drilon, the President was very specific in her instructions to the peace panel and General Esperon that under no circumstances shall we allow any reference to independence for the Bangsamoro. That is why the President specifically insisted that even if the MOA is signed, there will be no effect without any enabling law which must be drawn by Congress, and the legal/constitutional requirements must be followed.

So what would be impeachable here? What is Mr. Drilon talking about? In fact, for the information of everyone, the original demand of the MILF was an immediate plebiscite after the signing of the MOA. At first, the MILF was objecting to the condition of an enabling law, but again the President vetoed this proposal and insisted that, granting that the MOA is signed, there must first be an enabling law which would detail the legal/constitutional process, and then call for a plebiscite.

Based on the foregoing, I think our people should be assured that all safeguards are in place. The bottom line is, we want to give peace a chance, but as the President insisted, it must not be peace at any price.

****

I disagree with the claim of the MILF that the MOA, subject of the aborted signing because of the temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court, is already a “done deal” just because the same was already initialed. I will not blame the MILF leaders if they are not lawyers, but under no circumstance shall a document which was merely initialed, and not signed, be considered legally binding. There is no question that the proposed MOA, which remains unsigned, does not bind the Republic of the Philippines, as in fact, it will not bind without an enabling law passed by Congress, and a plebiscite which will be the final and ultimate expression of the people’s will in Mindanao.

****

The World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Geneva have collapsed and countries like the Philippines are back to their own devices to secure markets for their goods. Developing countries all over the world are relying on their bilateral trade agreements with other countries to maintain their exports as the future promises to go back to a defensive stance to protect export markets. The Philippines has only a few trade agreements, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Free Trade Area Agreement and the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, which has yet to be ratified by the Senate. The WTO’s failure brings more roadblocks to our drive to penetrate more lucrative export markets, particularly those that are not traditionally open to our goods. We relied mostly on the WTO’s promise of a world market without borders, a problem not of our making. This development is now pushing our trade attachés and representatives to push for stronger trade access to our traditional and nontraditional markets, and to establish more trading partners to improve our toehold on markets which we have already gained through traditional and WTO-led initiatives.

One Response to “Let’s give peace a chance”

• 1
  The Slow Demise Of Institutions | inc.ubators
  August 7th, 2008 12:37

  […] Let’s give peace a chance […]

Leave a Reply