NEWSPAPER HEADLINES have once more appeared to have already convicted President Arroyo in connection with the supposed agreement on what media claimed to be “exploration” of the Spratlys by China, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Critics claim that this may be an impeachable offense committed by the President for violating the Constitution because of Section 2, Article 12, which provides that “the exploration, development and utilization of our natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.”

****

Once more, some members of the Senate and the House who are obviously misinformed appear to be elbowing each other as to who will be the first to conduct an inquiry into the supposed agreement.

It is possible, however, that the critics don’t even know that the agreement refers not to “government to government” basis but to private entities like the Philippine National Oil Co., the China Offshore Oil Corp. and Vietnam Oil and Gas Corp., all being chartered and governed by commercial laws by their respective countries.

They also don’t know that no government expense can be charged against the Philippine government because in the tripartite agreement between the three private entities, it is provided that each party shall be responsible for the cost of its own personnel as well as the cost of its operations.

****

But what is most surprising is why my good friend, former Senate President Franklin Drilon, seems to have insinuated in the newspapers that the President may be impeached on the issue, although he said that there is no treason involved.

Maybe Mr. Drilon forgot that on August 27, 1990, in Department of Justice Opinion 157, Series of 1990, the same Drilon who was then secretary of Justice who is now criticizing the President, wrote this very opinion in connection with the proposed seismic project to be undertaken by the government of the Philippines and the government of Australia.

In this opinion, Mr. Drilon opined: “The proposed offshore seismic project aims to provide data and expertise to the Philippine government in the determination and development of significant domestic energy resources and to provide training and data-gathering, processing and interpretation techniques which would be useful in the future. especially to administer petroleum exploration and development activities effectively.”

Drilon further wrote, “We find no legal objection to the project proposal and the execution of the MOA [memorandum of agreement] covering it. As we see it, the project proposal which involves data gathering, processing and interpretation techniques are only pre-exploration activities which are not covered by constitutional limitations.”

Is there a wide gap from the opinion of Mr. Drilon as secretary of Justice and Mr. Drilon as a private citizen who is identified with the opposition?

****

There is a provision in Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code known as “Unlawful use of means of publication.” It states that “it is a crime for any means of publication to publish any false news which may endanger public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the state.”

It is, likewise, punishable “for any news publication to encourage disobedience to the law or duly constituted authorities or praise, justify or extol any act punishable by law.”

I hope that by stating this provision of the law, it will not be construed as sending a “chilling effect” on media practitioners.

****

Iloilo City councilor Antonio Pesina observed how lovey-dovey Cory and Erap were during the Makati rally on February 29. Pesina observed that Cory was seen whispering something to Erap, who seems to be enjoying the attention showered on him by his former nemesis.

The two former presidents went upstage together and the naughty Pesina wondered aloud if the two were holding hands as they took their seats.

One Response to “The Spratlys and Mr. Drilon”

• 1
  Rey Castillo
  March 10th, 2008 14:27

  Columnista gali si Da King???

Leave a Reply