A plague upon our land

BY ANTONIO CONTRERAS       JUNE 27, 2019

THERE is a plague that is now wreaking havoc on our political landscape, and it is tearing our nation asunder. It is one that has spread because of the anomalous behavior of people attacking their fellow Filipinos not because the latter have committed acts inimical to our national interest or harmful to other Filipinos. The vicious lynching, mainly through social media, is because these people have committed acts seen as inimical to China’s interests.

It behooves us to ask, for example, what crime former secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario has committed for him to be skewered by pro-Duterte cyber trolls and bloggers. Many say that he was a member of the Cabinet of former President Noynoy Aquino. But the hatred appears to be less because of that fact, but rather because of what he has done. Specifically, del Rosario was involved in the prosecution of our case against China over the West Philippine Sea. This is what earned him the ire of many pro-Duterte defenders of China. This is the same reason why Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who was also involved in the case, is equally hated by this crowd.

What heightened the anger further was when del Rosario, together with former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, filed a complaint against Chinese President Xi Jinping at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for China’s aggressive acts in the West Philippine Sea which they said threatened the livelihood of Filipino fishermen, and endangered the sustainability of our marine ecosystems.

Yet, these are actions that technically do not in any way undermine our national interest, but in fact advance and protect it. It strains credulity to even believe that filing a case against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague was done to harm the Filipino people. It is also bizarre to argue that our national interest was the one impleaded when del Rosario and Carpio-Morales took Xi Jinping to task at the ICC.

Many people would accuse anyone who raises these issues of being naïve, but naiveté is probably now the only weapon we have to remain sane, because otherwise the pragmatic explanation would be damning. It would be one where many of us, including some of our leaders, have subordinated our national interest to that of China’s, that a case filed against Xi Jinping is now construed as harmful to the interests of the Filipino people, and those who brought it to the ICC deserve to be treated as traitors to the Republic.

We would like to believe that this is not the case if we accept the assurances of the President that no inch of our territory and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) will be ceded. This is why it is cognitively dissonant for many Duterte supporters to treat those who fight for the integrity of our EEZ and for the protection of our territorial boundaries, like del Rosario, as if they are enemies of the State.

And yet this is what we witness. Earlier, when Carpio-Morales was held in Hong Kong, many supporters of the President wildly cheered at her misfortune. And the same jubilation erupted in social media when it was del Rosario’s turn, which in his case was even worse because he was actually denied entry. And the theme of the celebration was clear — that both deserved what they got for their audacity to enter Hong Kong after filing a case against China’s President, that they had it coming. Absent is the consideration of the fact that Hong Kong has an autonomous status vis-à-vis Beijing, and that Hong Kong nationals are highly protective of this autonomy. This is precisely why millions of them participated in street demonstrations to demand the resignation of their pro-Beijing leader. It is certainly a blight to our being a sovereign nation when Hong Kong nationals are now the ones taking up the cudgels for del Rosario and Carpio-Morales, while here in our country they are insulted and vilified by fellow Filipinos.

Many people take issue with del Rosario’s use of a diplomatic passport, accusing him of committing some sort of impropriety. But a close perusal of the law and regulations, and of tradition, reveal that it has been a practice not only in the Philippines, but in other countries, to issue diplomatic passports to former foreign affairs secretaries and retired ambassadors. Del Rosario is both. The wording of Article 7(a) of RA 8239, or the Philippine Passport Act, clearly identifies ambassadors as being one of those entitled to be issued diplomatic passports, even as Article 3(g) clearly defines ambassadors as “those who have been appointed as chiefs of mission and have served as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,” for which del Rosario and others like him who have been appointed as chiefs of mission would qualify. The IRR of the law requires that diplomatic passports should be revalidated by the DFA before every use, which del Rosario has complied, with according to DFA. The fact that he was allowed by our immigration officers to leave meant that his travel papers were in order.

There is no disagreement with the argument that Hong Kong has every right to deny anyone, even those carrying diplomatic passports, entry. But nothing is stopping us to politely inquire on behalf of del Rosario the reason for such denial. After all, it is our diplomatic passport holder who was denied without an official explanation.

Apparently, public rage against del Rosario has overpowered rational thinking. One has to deflect the issue away from the fact that Hong Kong authorities acted on behalf of China’s interest by exacting revenge on del Rosario. And the better way to do this is to focus on his use of a diplomatic passport.

But the plague that threatens our country can no longer be contained. And its signs are apparent when many Filipinos celebrate the misfortunes of one of us, simply because he had the temerity to file a case against Xi Jinping and China.

https://www.manilatimes.net/a-plague-upon-our-land/575525/