They’re telling Malacañang to say sorry to Taiwan for deporting 14 Taiwanese felons to Mainland China. Supposedly apology would avert Taiwan’s retaliatory actions on hapless Filipino jobseekers. Already, they cry, a new imposition of showing social security IDs when securing work visas to Taiwan is delaying by four months what used to take only two weeks for gainful deployment. That’s because four months is the fastest that the SSS can issue cards.
Sovereignty issues aren’t as simple as that, though. To begin with, swiftness or slowness of SSS card making is a Philippine internal matter. If other countries can do it in days, then the Philippines must follow suit, without having to apologize to anyone. As for bowing to the whim of a haughty island-province of China, placating Taiwan today may worsen its attitude tomorrow. What if Taiwan relaxes rules on Filipino hires for a while after Philippine contrition, then abuses them tomorrow? Will the Philippines be able to save its citizens from Taiwanese provincials who look down on their government?
The scenario is not far-fetched, with the nature of Taiwan’s present leadership. The Kuomintang (KMT) had retaken power in 2008 after eight years in the hands of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party. Last Nov. it won by slim margin three of five key local seats. Once the communists’ bitterest enemy, the KMT dreams of reunifying Taiwan with China; which Beijing of course likes. Despite KMT election victories, anti-Beijing, pro-de jure separation sentiment among Taiwanese is strong.
The KMT insists that its cushy stance towards Beijing is the right tack. But Beijing reportedly has stepped up a “smokeless war” to regain the island. So Taiwanese are questioning the KMT’s softness. It was discomfited recently with the exposure of yet another army general to be spying for the communists. To downplay the shame, the KMT loudly is demand a Philippine apology for handing over its provincials to the Mainland. In the process, however, the KMT is showing its true self: in the name of 14 criminals, it is bullying hapless foreign workers.
* * *
Last week I asked if Reynaldo Villar is overstaying as Commission on Audit chief, like resident auditors he placed in selected agencies. He should have retired last Feb. 2, 2011, says Rep. Ben Evardone. That day ended his seven-year term at the COA, four as commissioner and three as chairman. But Villar claims that he gained a new seven years when appointed chairman in 2008. This supposedly makes him retireable only in 2015, and so he’ll stay till then. I granted Villar’s right to his personal opinion. Still, I opined that it’s unfitting for any official to determine his own tenure, if contested. Surely there is any of three defining authorities: the Commission on Appointments’ papers, if not Supreme Court jurisprudence, if not the 1986 Constitutional Commission’s intent.
Well, it turns out that all three bodies do infer that Villar is indeed overstaying. This is expounded in a position paper of the Citizens’ Oversight on Accountability (which shares a common acronym with the COA, except that its is C.O.A.). The C.O.A. board of trustees consists of former COA chairmen, commissioners or directors: Eufemio Domingo, Celso Gangan, Sofronio Ursal, Hermogines Pobre, Alberto Cruz, and Tito Nabua. Revered all, their stand on Villar’s overstaying carries weight. They had sent it to President Noynoy Aquino as far back as Jan. 21.
The C.O.A. cites the:
• Commission on Appointments papers. Villar first was appointed commissioner on Feb. 7, 2004, with term up to Feb. 2, 2011. The CA confirmed it on Mar. 16, 2005. He was then elevated to chairman on Apr. 15, 2008, “for a term expiring on Feb. 2, 2011.” The CA confirmed this on June 11, 2008. His appointment clearly has lapsed.
• Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Tribunal had ruled in 2000 on a similar case at the Civil Service Commission. In Gaminde v. COA it stated that when she was appointed commissioner “for a term expiring on Feb. 2, 1999,” Thelma Gaminde accepted it by swearing into and assuming office. In like manner Villar accepted his term end of Feb. 2, 2011 when he swore into and assumed the chairmanship. He cannot now change the ruling, in a case brought to the SC by the COA itself.
• Constitutional Commission’s intent. Transcripts of 1986 Con-Com deliberations include an interpellation by Felicitas Aquino of Christian Monsod. It clears up the complication of commissioners being upgraded to chairmen, or chairmen downgraded to commissioners, in independent Commissions (on Audit, Elections, Civil Service). Aquino had wanted to define the tenure in such cases to mean an aggregate of seven years. No need, Monsod replied, since the wording of Article IX-D, Section 1 (2) is explicit: “The Chairman and Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment.” Monsod stated: “There is no reappointment of any kind; therefore, as a whole there is no way that somebody can serve for more than seven years.” So there.
Villar had better not push his luck by claiming additional tenures from out of nowhere. For, as Evardone points out, his very appointment as chairman in 2008 could be voided, for being verily a prohibited reappointment from commissioner.
* * *
E-mail: jariusbondoc@workmail.com