Ambivalence unmasked

NOTE: I have asked our deputy permanent representative to the United Nations to review the book written by Rodolfo C. Severino, a distinguished Filipino diplomat and former ASEAN Secretary General. The issue discussed in the book deserves priority focus by our executive and legislative branch in 2011. The book will be launched here in Manila on January 10.

A review of Ambassador Rodolfo C. Severino’s “Where in the World is the Philippines?”

By Carlos D. Sorreta

Sovereignty and territorial integrity are hallmarks of an independent state. Other states can dispute and disagree as to what is claimed by another state as its territory. This happens quite often.

What should not happen is that within a state itself are serious and fundamental differences as to what constitutes its territory. Domestic ambiguity in law and policy over what comprises the territory of a state leads to confusion and misunderstanding. It weakens the state’s ability to work with other states in resolving territorial disputes.

Ambassador Severino’s book “Where in the World is the Philippines?” unmasks the history of ambivalence that has plagued efforts of the Philippine Government to determine with some certainty and finality, what exactly makes up Philippine territory.

I was first intrigued by the seeming inconsistencies in Philippine law and policy on our territory when I was in law school. The more I studied and read about it, the more confused and baffled I became. It seemed that the Philippine Government could not make up its mind on the juridical relationship between and among our treaty limits, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and our constitution and laws.

I joined the Department of Foreign Affairs after law school with the hope that within this institution I would find the answers that I sought. Instead, my worst fears were confirmed: ambivalence can lead to disastrous policy decisions.

Shortly after I joined the Department, an agreement was initialed between the Philippines and Malaysia for joint exploitation of fish resources in an area claimed by both countries (as well as by others) in the South China Sea. At an interagency meeting composed of the high officials who were to travel to Kuala Lumpur for its signing, I suggested that entering into an agreement allowing foreigners to fish in Philippine territory (even if disputed territory) might be unconstitutional, citing the pertinent provisions of the constitution. I said it did not matter that the area was under dispute. If the area is Philippine territory, then our constitution must apply and even more so if others are disputing our ownership.

At that meeting, I got a taste of the legendary fury of the delegation head and DFA Undersecretary for Policy, the indomitable Pablo Suarez. Much of what he said I remember quite clearly but will be unable to print. Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was there and can bear witness. She was the Special Assistant of Justice Undersecretary Eduardo Montenegro, who was also present.

A few days later, with my ears still ringing, Undersecretary Suarez summoned me to his office. To my surprise, he told me that he agreed with me. From then on, he would ask me to help him out with speeches and policy papers.

The agreement was negotiated and initialed when Ambassador Severino was the Philippine Ambassador to Malaysia. He would later replace Undersecretary Suarez. As things would have it, I ended up as Ambassador Severino’s Special Assistant for Policy and would witness firsthand the virtual revolution he would launch to settle once and for all internal doubts and confusion over what constitutes Philippine territory.

In “Where in the World is the Philippines?” Ambassador Severino asks a question that no nation should find itself in need of answering.

The nature of the question belies what he believes has been the dire state of Philippine law and policy on Philippine territory. Rather than posing a straightforward question like “What is Philippine Territory?” Ambassador Severino, perhaps in a playful allusion to a computer game that first became popular in the ’80s, asks what is largely a rhetorical question.

His book gives no answer to either question. What Ambassador Severino does is chronicle the history behind our territory and our territorial claims. This is no mean task. The history is detailed and complex. The issues are difficult, the terrain dotted with legal minefields.

Ambassador Severino makes a deliberate effort not to engage in legal arguments and concedes that these are best left to other scholars. Fortunately, over the past two decades, there have been a number of legal studies on Philippine territory that has been characterized by profound scholarship.

This new wave of scholarship and open debate was no accident. Ambassador Severino had much to do about this. As Undersecretary for Policy, he vigorously pushed for a more open and inclusive debate on what constitutes Philippines territory.

There was a time when the discussions on the issue of Philippine territory, particularly matters relating to the law of the sea, were the strict monopoly of a small circle of experts. They dominated the discussions. It was difficult to contest their findings.

If solutions are to be found, Ambassador Severino believed that such an important issue could not be left to diplomats and lawyers alone. He instituted reforms in the DFA on how the issue was handled, creating a specific office.

He also believed that the public must be made aware of this issue. As his Special Assistant, I remember preparing presentations for him on Philippine territory which he would give to various audiences, from media groups, to academics and even to the Rotary Club of Makati.

After reading “Where in the World is the Philippines?” it is clear that Ambassador Severino’s earlier determination to shed more light on the subject remained even after he left government service.

Ambassador Severino’s book succeeds in illuminating the many complex issues that surround the questions of what constitutes Philippine territory. He writes with a clarity rarely seen in one who has spent most of his life in a government bureaucracy.

Perhaps more importantly, having laid out the background and identified the key issues in a clear and convincing manner, Ambassador Severino’s book urges the country to make a decision and to stick with it. The author expresses some pessimism on whether this would ever happen. His views on why this has been difficult is a commentary on the very nature of Philippine politics.

Ambassador Severino’s book is very timely. The answers to many of the questions and issues he identified in his book are now in the hands of the Supreme Court in the case questioning the constitutionality of Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law (RA 9522).

One of the striking things about Ambassador Severino’s book is the comprehensive way he presents the complicated background of the issues involved, such that one can confidently take either side of this case. He even presents in a clear and lucid manner, the very real possibility that the Philippines might have to amend its constitution to settle once and for all the issue of Philippine territory.

Whatever the outcome of the case, many of the questions raised by Ambassador Severino will remain valid. Whichever way the Supreme Court goes, there will still be serious and complex territorial and jurisdictional conflicts with our neighboring states.

In the end, our boundaries will have to be negotiated with our neighbors, our conflicts resolved through diplomacy and negotiations. These conflicts cannot be resolved by hitting each other over the head with legal maxims or drowning each other in ancient maps. 

We will eventually have to sit down with other nations and together acknowledge the importance of stable boundaries. But before we do that, we must settle our own internal disputes and conflicts over what constitutes Philippine territory.