Bob Ong
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Noy wants US basing obstacles cleared
Written by Tribune Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Charter is clear on ban of foreign bases in RP, nukes
It is no longer a scenario of a return of US bases in this country but a reality under President Aquino, who is apparently pushing to get the American bases back in the Philippines — by constitutional hook or crook.
Malacañang appears to be very serious in going around the constitutional ban on the presence of foreign military bases and foreign troops in the country through a Palace legal position, along with the constitutional proviso of the country being nuclear-free.
A legal maneuver on the provisions of the 1987 Constitution is being studied by the President’s men in a bid to clear whatever constitutional obstacles exist for the possible stationing of the United States military forces in the Philippines, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda declared yesterday.
Despite the constitutional ban on nukes, Aquino has been known to allow entry to nuclear-armed ships from the US, which is against the Charter.
Lacierda said: “That has to be studied in line with the constitutional provision prohibiting foreign bases, so that will have to be studied.”
The framers of the of the 1987 Constitution had written in Article II, under the Declaration of Principles and State Policy, Section 8, stating that “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory,” apart from which the Constitution also clearly states that there can be no foreign bases or foreign troops in the country.
The Senate had already voided the treaty between the Philippines and the United States on the bases agreement decades ago.
Lacierda said he had talked to Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin to clarify the issue on the foreign bases, saying that Gazmin had told him of the possibility of a US bases return that was discussed only if there would an actual scenario of war as an alternative brought about by a threat from North Korea.
“Again, these are only options and I spoke to Secretary Volts Gazmin. The context to his answer there was that if there was going to be an actual shooting war. Number two, in his view, the basing will only be temporary,” Lacierda said.
Lacierda stressed that which was on the mind of Gazmin was part of the anticipation if an imminent threat of war in the Korean peninsula would take place which is near Philippine territory.
“Again, these are scenario-building options that the Secretary of National Defense is mandated to do. Part of his mandate is to build, to look into several options, several scenarios, in case of conflict, if the Korean Peninsula conflict would escalate,” Lacierda said.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario already said that the Philippine government has the obligation to provide support for the United States troops in case there would be war.
Del Rosario cited as basis the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America that was signed on Aug. 30, 1951 in Washington, DC between representatives of the Philippines and the United States.
The overall accord contained eight articles and dictated that both nations would support each other if either the Philippines or the United States were to be attacked by an external party.
The treaty which contains only eight articles is purely for war purposes.
As stated in Article 1 of the treaty, each party is to settle international disputes in a peaceful manner so that international peace is not threatened and to refrain from the threat of the use of force in any manner that is inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.
Article II states that each party either separately or jointly through mutual aid may acquire, develop and maintain their capacity to resist armed attack.
Article III states that from time to time the parties will consult one another through the use of their secretaries of state, foreign ministers or consuls in order to determine the appropriate measures of implementation. The parties will also consult one another when either of the party determines that their territorial integrity, political independence or national security is threatened by armed attack in the Pacific.
Article lV states that an attack on either party will be acted upon in accordance with their constitutional processes and that any armed attack on either party will be brought to the attention of the United Nations for immediate action. Once the United Nations has issued such orders all hostile actions between the signatories of this treaty and opposing parties will be terminated.
Article V defines the meaning of attack and its purpose which include all attacks by a hostile power will be held as an attack on a metropolitan area by both parties or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
Article Vl states that this treaty does not affect, impede, or shall not be interpreted as affecting the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article Vll states that the treaty shall be ratified in accordance with the constitutional processes delineated by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
Lastly, Article Vlll stipulates that the treaty terms are indefinite until one or both parties wishes to terminate the agreement. If the agreement is to be terminated, either party must give one year advanced notice.
Militant lawmakers yesterday expressed strong opposition to the proposal made by the defense chief for the return of the US military bases in the country.
Makabayan senatorial bet Teddy Casiño vehemently opposed the revival of US military bases in the Philippines, in case the Korean Peninsula conflict erupts into war, saying that the return of US bases will drag us into a war that is not to our national interest.
“Angeles and Olongapo City are already free of military bases and are doing fine. Since US military bases left their areas, they had become more productive and gotten over the social ills and vices that came with the bases. The return of these bases will only revive a host of problems such as vices of prostitution, and violence,” Casiño told his audience during a Makabayan Coalition assembly in Pampanga.
Casiño added that the return of the US bases will only erode the development in the area.
“The US military is now having frequent port calls, numbering in hundreds, in the country. There is already the Balikatan. US troops are virtually present in the Philippines. There are already US bases in South Korea, Japan and Guam. What else do they (US) want?”, Casiño said.
“It is an affront to our national sovereignty. Are we going to allow Americans to use us, the Filipinos? This is too much,” he said.
In addition to the numerous problems and human rights violations of US forces in the Philippines, Casiño cited former UP Law dean Pacifico Agabin’s argument that the Mutual Defense Treaty does not bind the United States into protecting the Philippines in case of war and that US assurances are “purely illusory” given that any attack in the Pacific would require an approval by the US Congress before the deployment of US troops.
Casiño is the author of House Joint Resolution 7, “A joint resolution terminating the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement” and House Resolution 1242, “A resolution strongly opposing the return of US troops and military facilities in Clark or Subic or any part of the country under the pretext of the Visiting Forces Agreement in affirmation of the Filipino People’s historic rejection of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991.”
For his part, Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares denounced Gazmin’s statement that the US may set up their bases in the country, describing the proposal as a dangerous one and an outright defiance of the Constitution.”
“The Philippines is not involved in the dispute in Korea. If we set up US bases here then we become a legitimate target of the enemies of the United States,” said Colmenares.
“The US Bases renewal was voted down by the Senate of the Philippines in 1991 because of a number of reasons. One is that it is a magnet for attack from foreign adversaries of the US and it created and allowed the proliferation of the social ills like prostitution and drugs. Additionally it also constitutes a violation of the nuclear-free provision in our Constitution and may even cause a nuclear accident because US bases contain nuclear weapons. More importantly, the presence of foreign troops which is not under our command and control is a direct violation of our sovereignty,” the solon explained.
He also said that the country cannot benefit from the reestablishment of the US bases, even in cases which Gazmin describes as “extreme emergency”.
“By allowing the US to set-up bases again in our country, it will only make our nation and our people vulnerable. We will not in any way benefit from this because we have nothing to do with the Koreans’ issue,” he also said. “We’ve been asking the government what possible benefits do we get from the VFA and US bases, and the government has no answer at all except that we earn a few millions in tourist dollars. We cannot sell our souls and endanger the lives of our people, and more importantly our sovereignty, in exchange for a few pieces of silver. This is treason!” Colmenares claimed.
“On the contrary, the Mutual Defense Treay as well as the Visiting Forces Agreement must already by abrograted. Considering that even the US-RP defense treaty does not allow for re-stationing of the US Bases in the country, what President Aquino should do is terminate these instead of toying with ideas that endanger the lives of the Filipino people,” Colmenares said.
By Paul Atienza and Charlie V. Manalo
Published in Headlines
Written by Tribune Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Charter is clear on ban of foreign bases in RP, nukes
It is no longer a scenario of a return of US bases in this country but a reality under President Aquino, who is apparently pushing to get the American bases back in the Philippines — by constitutional hook or crook.
Malacañang appears to be very serious in going around the constitutional ban on the presence of foreign military bases and foreign troops in the country through a Palace legal position, along with the constitutional proviso of the country being nuclear-free.
A legal maneuver on the provisions of the 1987 Constitution is being studied by the President’s men in a bid to clear whatever constitutional obstacles exist for the possible stationing of the United States military forces in the Philippines, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda declared yesterday.
Despite the constitutional ban on nukes, Aquino has been known to allow entry to nuclear-armed ships from the US, which is against the Charter.
Lacierda said: “That has to be studied in line with the constitutional provision prohibiting foreign bases, so that will have to be studied.”
The framers of the of the 1987 Constitution had written in Article II, under the Declaration of Principles and State Policy, Section 8, stating that “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory,” apart from which the Constitution also clearly states that there can be no foreign bases or foreign troops in the country.
The Senate had already voided the treaty between the Philippines and the United States on the bases agreement decades ago.
Lacierda said he had talked to Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin to clarify the issue on the foreign bases, saying that Gazmin had told him of the possibility of a US bases return that was discussed only if there would an actual scenario of war as an alternative brought about by a threat from North Korea.
“Again, these are only options and I spoke to Secretary Volts Gazmin. The context to his answer there was that if there was going to be an actual shooting war. Number two, in his view, the basing will only be temporary,” Lacierda said.
Lacierda stressed that which was on the mind of Gazmin was part of the anticipation if an imminent threat of war in the Korean peninsula would take place which is near Philippine territory.
“Again, these are scenario-building options that the Secretary of National Defense is mandated to do. Part of his mandate is to build, to look into several options, several scenarios, in case of conflict, if the Korean Peninsula conflict would escalate,” Lacierda said.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario already said that the Philippine government has the obligation to provide support for the United States troops in case there would be war.
Del Rosario cited as basis the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America that was signed on Aug. 30, 1951 in Washington, DC between representatives of the Philippines and the United States.
The overall accord contained eight articles and dictated that both nations would support each other if either the Philippines or the United States were to be attacked by an external party.
The treaty which contains only eight articles is purely for war purposes.
As stated in Article 1 of the treaty, each party is to settle international disputes in a peaceful manner so that international peace is not threatened and to refrain from the threat of the use of force in any manner that is inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.
Article II states that each party either separately or jointly through mutual aid may acquire, develop and maintain their capacity to resist armed attack.
Article III states that from time to time the parties will consult one another through the use of their secretaries of state, foreign ministers or consuls in order to determine the appropriate measures of implementation. The parties will also consult one another when either of the party determines that their territorial integrity, political independence or national security is threatened by armed attack in the Pacific.
Article lV states that an attack on either party will be acted upon in accordance with their constitutional processes and that any armed attack on either party will be brought to the attention of the United Nations for immediate action. Once the United Nations has issued such orders all hostile actions between the signatories of this treaty and opposing parties will be terminated.
Article V defines the meaning of attack and its purpose which include all attacks by a hostile power will be held as an attack on a metropolitan area by both parties or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
Article Vl states that this treaty does not affect, impede, or shall not be interpreted as affecting the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article Vll states that the treaty shall be ratified in accordance with the constitutional processes delineated by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
Lastly, Article Vlll stipulates that the treaty terms are indefinite until one or both parties wishes to terminate the agreement. If the agreement is to be terminated, either party must give one year advanced notice.
Militant lawmakers yesterday expressed strong opposition to the proposal made by the defense chief for the return of the US military bases in the country.
Makabayan senatorial bet Teddy Casiño vehemently opposed the revival of US military bases in the Philippines, in case the Korean Peninsula conflict erupts into war, saying that the return of US bases will drag us into a war that is not to our national interest.
“Angeles and Olongapo City are already free of military bases and are doing fine. Since US military bases left their areas, they had become more productive and gotten over the social ills and vices that came with the bases. The return of these bases will only revive a host of problems such as vices of prostitution, and violence,” Casiño told his audience during a Makabayan Coalition assembly in Pampanga.
Casiño added that the return of the US bases will only erode the development in the area.
“The US military is now having frequent port calls, numbering in hundreds, in the country. There is already the Balikatan. US troops are virtually present in the Philippines. There are already US bases in South Korea, Japan and Guam. What else do they (US) want?”, Casiño said.
“It is an affront to our national sovereignty. Are we going to allow Americans to use us, the Filipinos? This is too much,” he said.
In addition to the numerous problems and human rights violations of US forces in the Philippines, Casiño cited former UP Law dean Pacifico Agabin’s argument that the Mutual Defense Treaty does not bind the United States into protecting the Philippines in case of war and that US assurances are “purely illusory” given that any attack in the Pacific would require an approval by the US Congress before the deployment of US troops.
Casiño is the author of House Joint Resolution 7, “A joint resolution terminating the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement” and House Resolution 1242, “A resolution strongly opposing the return of US troops and military facilities in Clark or Subic or any part of the country under the pretext of the Visiting Forces Agreement in affirmation of the Filipino People’s historic rejection of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991.”
For his part, Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares denounced Gazmin’s statement that the US may set up their bases in the country, describing the proposal as a dangerous one and an outright defiance of the Constitution.”
“The Philippines is not involved in the dispute in Korea. If we set up US bases here then we become a legitimate target of the enemies of the United States,” said Colmenares.
“The US Bases renewal was voted down by the Senate of the Philippines in 1991 because of a number of reasons. One is that it is a magnet for attack from foreign adversaries of the US and it created and allowed the proliferation of the social ills like prostitution and drugs. Additionally it also constitutes a violation of the nuclear-free provision in our Constitution and may even cause a nuclear accident because US bases contain nuclear weapons. More importantly, the presence of foreign troops which is not under our command and control is a direct violation of our sovereignty,” the solon explained.
He also said that the country cannot benefit from the reestablishment of the US bases, even in cases which Gazmin describes as “extreme emergency”.
“By allowing the US to set-up bases again in our country, it will only make our nation and our people vulnerable. We will not in any way benefit from this because we have nothing to do with the Koreans’ issue,” he also said. “We’ve been asking the government what possible benefits do we get from the VFA and US bases, and the government has no answer at all except that we earn a few millions in tourist dollars. We cannot sell our souls and endanger the lives of our people, and more importantly our sovereignty, in exchange for a few pieces of silver. This is treason!” Colmenares claimed.
“On the contrary, the Mutual Defense Treay as well as the Visiting Forces Agreement must already by abrograted. Considering that even the US-RP defense treaty does not allow for re-stationing of the US Bases in the country, what President Aquino should do is terminate these instead of toying with ideas that endanger the lives of the Filipino people,” Colmenares said.
By Paul Atienza and Charlie V. Manalo
Published in Headlines
