It’s hard to be objective in assessing President Noynoy Aquino’s first year in office. He being the historic first to get an overwhelming mandate from the Filipino people, those evaluating Aquino, like me, would like to see him succeed. His victory is shared with the people, while his failure will be borne by the people alone. On the other hand, because he has a popular mandate, there are those who simply will never appreciate what he has done. Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would be in this group.
But because politics has become a science, leaders have to be evaluated at least on the basis of what they promised they would do once given the mandate.
First, he promised that he would not be corrupt, and that neither would he tolerate corruption. Mr. Aquino scores big in this category. Fault him for being indecisive, fault him with KKK, fault him with lack of vision, but his primary promise was to be clean. He scores a perfect 10 on this one. Let’s put it this way, with parents like Ninoy and Cory, does he have a choice? Of course not. He would be hounded by his own parents from their graves if he were to be corrupt.
The next question though is: Has he promoted his own standard of honesty in the entire governmental machinery? Again, the answer is a resounding no. But this is to be expected. PNoy can only hope to lead by example. He cannot rid the entire system of the malaise, at least not after only 365 days. Where he needs improvement though is in implementing the laws and the rules as head of the executive branch of government. It’s not enough to be honest himself. He has to ensure that those who were corrupt are punished so that others will learn by way of example not to be corrupt. The fact is one year later, PNoy has not filed even a single case of corruption against Arroyo or her cohorts. Tax cases are simply no substitute for the enforcement of the country’s anti-graft laws. We need to hold the corrupt responsible for their deeds in order to uphold the principle that public office is a public trust. Somehow, enforcement of tax laws does not have the seriousness and resolve as upholding the most basic constitutional principle on governance.
He promised to address poverty. Unfortunately, whether or not he succeeded here will be purely speculative. Both gains and setbacks could be attributed to the past administration. What is important is how novel he has been in implementing this promise to uplift majority of our people from poverty.
I’m afraid that the answer is that there has not been too much imagination. What the President has to show for this promise is the conditional cash transfer program, a flagship also of the past administration; and the public-private partnership (PPP) program, which still has to be implemented.
Where Aquino needs to be credited, though, is the perception that under his watch, there will be a level playing field for business translated lately into an upgrade in our credit rating from Moody’s and other credit rating agencies. In fairness therefore, if only because of very limited time, we need to give the President a modest seven out of 10 on this criterion.
Then there is peace and order. He did promise that extralegal killings would stop and that their perpetrators will be punished. He even made mention of the Maguindanao massacre in particular, but without saying what he would promise for the case.
Well, the killings have not stopped, killers have not been convicted, and the Maguindanao massacre prosecution is on-going without clear indications either when it will end, or how. Here, the President almost fails, but for some redeeming points. Leila De Lima is still a gem for being the Secretary of Justice with a human-rights perspective. De Lima is about to take the ultimate litmus test herself that will determine her place in Philippine history and in the floor of the Senate: whether to charge her own client, Joel Reyes for the murder of Doc Gerry Ortega. But certainly, PNoy’s choice for the Justice portfolio is like an oasis in the desert. Furthermore, while the killings have not stopped, gone is the perception that the killings are tolerated by the highest officer of the land. This at least gives hope to both victims and advocates alike. My score here: eight.
PNoy’s Waterloo: the promise that we, the people, would be his boss and that there would be no kaibigan (friend) and kamag-anak (relative) in governance. There may not have been a literal breach of his promise insofar as relatives are concerned, to the chagrin of Rep. Peping Cojuangco et al., but instead, there were kaklase (classmates), kaibigan and kabarilan (shooting buddies). Mr. President, when you promised that we the people would be your boss, we expected not only pro-people policies; but also officials who will be pro-people themselves. We simply have not seen these from your KKKs. In fact, they may end up destroying your administration. My score here: seven.
How did the President do? Not bad. On the basis of only four criteria, he scored eight out of 10. This means that in my book, Aquino was a good President this past year, although with a lot of room for improvement. With five years still to go, there’s plenty of time and opportunity for this. Make no mistake about it, we the people are hoping and praying for PNoy’s success.
It’s a relief to have a President who is standing up to a bully. Whereas GMA sought to give away Philippine territory in exchange for anomalous Chinese deals, PNoy, even with absolutely no military firepower, has advanced the Philippine claim to the Kalayaan group of islands and the West Philippine seas firmly and without hesitation. This group of islands in the West of the country was described in maps merely as “hazards to navigation” until the 70’s. That was when we discovered oil in the area. The science is since oil and natural gas products are found in the continental shelf, the soil and sub-soil constituting the prolonged landmass of the Palawan archipelago, it may be that further petroleum resources are located in the other portions of the continental shelf beneath the rocks and islets constituting the Spratlys group of islands. This explains why China, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia all proceeded to lay claim to part or the entirety of the Spratlys. The title of the Philippines to the islands is because of discovery coupled with effective occupation. While it was a fact that many of the disputed islands, including Spratlys Island itself, which Taiwan has referred to as “Itu Iba”; were then under Japanese control during World War II, Japan nonetheless renounced its title to them without specifying to whom it was relinquishing the title. This prompted Thomas Cloma, a Merchant Marine school owner, to claim title to the islands by way of discovery of islands that were “terra nullius”, or without an owner. This claim to discovery was then espoused by Diosdado Macapagal. We have since by law, created the Municipality of Kalayaan as the local government for the area, and appended it to the Province of Palawan. We have also since performed acts indicating the exercise of sovereignty, referred to as “effectivities”. These would include the building of military installations on islands under our control and the award of concessions to explore for further mineral deposits in the area. While our mode of claiming title to the Spratlys may not be iron-clad, as in fact, it is hinged exclusively on the assumption that it was rendered “terra nullius” with the Japanese renunciation, still, the Philippines is the only country which has scientific evidence to prove that bulk of the contested area constitute its extended continental shelf. This much we have proven in the UP Law Center’s Institute of International Legal Studies Project on the Extended Continental Shelf. Further, as we are the closest claimant to the disputed islands, we are the only one that can claim a presumption of ownership over them. And as the only archipelagic claimant country, we have a monopoly to the claim that the islands, rocks, islets and waters surrounding them form part of our archipelago. The claim to title of China and Vietnam appear to be even more porous than ours. To begin with, both countries rely on ancient historical title, which of late, has been ruled by international tribunals as almost impossible to prove. China for instance, cannot prove an intent to possess the islands in the concept of an owner because sovereignty was foreign and unknown under its Confucian legal system. Likewise, Vietnam’s claim to historical title is impossible to prove using modern day rules of evidence given that very old records cannot be authenticated precisely because the persons who executed them are no longer around to identify them. Malaysia and Brunei, on the other hand, lay claim to portions of the area solely as part of their respective continental shelves. Of course, it is still our wish that the Spratlys controversy is resolved peacefully and preferably through negotiations, binding mediation, arbitration, or even through judicial means, either before the International Court of Justice or the United Nations Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (UNTLOS). Meanwhile, it imperative that other than showing political will, that this reform-minded PNoy Administration undo GMA’s machinations which collectively, weaken our claim to the disputed area. First, there is the Joint Seismic and Exploration Agreement with China. As far as I know, the only way to prospect for oil in the continental shelf is through seismic testing. As such, these tests can only be conducted by Filipinos or through FTAA’s, if foreigners are involved. The Joint Seismic agreement, apart form violating the Constitution, will weaken our claim in the same way that an owner of disputed property weakens his claim when he agrees to use and exploit the disputed property with his adversary. Second, there is an urgent need to repeal the 2009 archipelagic baselines law, which my good friend and ally, Senator Sonny Trillanes, authored while behind bars. This law incorporates the Spratlys under the so-called “regime of islands”. A state only adopts this regime for offshore islands, or islands located so far away from its mainland. Obviously, by resorting to this method, we undermine what could be our strongest claim to the islands: that is, that not only are they proximate to us; but more importantly, they form part of our archipelago. Third, there is need to annul all the anomalous Chinese deals that were given to the past administration as consideration for our national territory. To those who have been asking how the “tongpats” could be recovered by the project proponent of the National Broadband Network, the answer is now clear: it is the Spratlys, Diwalwal, North Davao and Northrail, all of which were granted by the past administration to Chinese companies. Tongpats for national territory: unforgiveable!
