He is aware that the proposal for charter change is controversial, caught as it is by the many controversies that surround the political leadership of the land. But he says that eventually the people will decide on the issue. "We will see how the people will decided when the matter is brought to them in a referendum."
For instance, we don't know the legal framework that should govern offenses committed by visiting US soldiers. Should it be the Philippines Constitution? Or should it be the Visiting Forces Agreement? Or should it be a mix of both? Judge Renato Dilag who presided over the trial in Olongapo was so confused that he withdrew the warrants for the arrest of the four erring servicemen the other day. This somersault he did after finding out that, after all, it was the Visiting Forces Agreement that was the applicable "law of the land" - as far as the trial was concerned. In short, he could not apply the procedures of arrest outlined in Philippine laws.
That is the problem with judges who do not have political sense. At the beginning of the trial, Judge Dilag proclaimed -with a lot of bravado- that he would arrest the US soldiers. But when the US embassy refused to honor his warrant, he had to back out. Even the Department of Foreign Affairs which was tasked to deliver the warrant was reluctant, knowing that the Americans had the option to reject the summons. The question that comes to mind is: To who is Judge Dilag responsible? Is he responsible to his own self? But should we allow him to be responsible to himself when he is himself confused on the matter of the law? It used to be that the judges were somehow responsible to the Department of Justice, under the old pre-martial law system. But when the Supreme Court took over management of the courts in the 1973 Constitution, the individual judges came under the supervision of the Chief Justice. Was Dilag properly guided by the Chief Justice on the case of the erring American servicemen? As if the Dilag somersault were not enough, another blunder is about to come. This is the proposal by Senator Miriam Santiago to abolish the VFA Commission. The people in the Palace should study this plan carefully because it appears to me a very rushed judgment. If the intention of the abolition is to send a message to the US, then it might end up giving us more problems. The problem with the VFA has something to do with its many onerous provisions. The best way to remedy the situation is to review and renegotiate the terms of the accord, not to abolish the VFA that is just an offshoot of the agreement itself.