Easing tensions

It’s almost impossible to listen to the news and not hear about the growing tensions between China and the Philippines. News about this comes out daily. From export/import standoffs to out and out bickering. Ever since the April face off at the Scarborough Shoal, both countries have had their share of misunderstandings, arguments, and tension so thick you could cut it with a knife. Unfortunately, all of this bickering hasn’t gotten either country anywhere and we are no more near solving this dispute now than when it first began. However, at least both China and the Philippines have finally realized this and have committed to escalating tension no further. The arrogance and refusal to communicate on both sides has simmered down, although it is still a thorny issue for both countries and the question of sovereignty remains.

In my opinion, this issue will best be solved for us by one-on-one communication and compromise between our two countries. There are already enough issues involving other Asean neighbors, nothing will get solved unless the individual nations talk amongst themselves. I believe the Philippines and China can reach some sort of conclusion if they openly discuss their concerns with one another with a genuine desire to reach a compromise. This is also a good way for easing tensions and returning good international relations. I believe this will get us a good outcome faster.

At the recently concluded Asean Regional Forum in Phnom Penh, the 10 Asean members just proved that no agreement could be reached among them. The fact that the meeting was deemed “successful” is laughable. News reports claim that they have come to a “common position” on the matter but they failed to issue a joint communiqué for the first time in the bloc’s 45-year history. The failure to issue the communiqué and all the discord at the forum is quite an embarrassment for the 10-member bloc. It just goes to show that several Southeast Asian nations are most definitely under China’s growing influence and have financial dependence on Beijing, like Cambodia — the 2012 chair for the forum.

Nevertheless, I still believe the Philippines can solve this dispute with China amicably and peacefully. There is such a large Chinese population in our country and the opportunities for working together abound. Just look at the new Angat Dam project. We were especially thankful (as President Aquino has publicly acknowledged) to Beijing for funding a P5.3-billion water improvement project. This just goes to show the importance of cooperation and respect among neighboring nations. Imagine what the world could accomplish if countries worked together instead of against each other? Hopefully, the issue will soon be behind us, and a settlement can be agreed upon that makes everyone happy in one way or another.

* * *

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress should have only one representative in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). This means one representative either from the House or the Senate. This decision was based on the fact that the 1987 Constitution states in the first paragraph of Section 8 Article VIII that Congress is entitled to only “a member” in the JBC.

I see the wisdom in the decision, which I feel, should have been made in 1987 when the JBC was formed through an act of Congress. I commend former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez for bringing up this issue to a decision. He has scored a major victory. While a majority of people may disagree with me on this, especially those from the House and Senate, I believe it’s a rational choice. To allow the legislature to have more quantitative influence on the JBC with two voices, whether one full vote of one half-vote each, would negate the equality among the branches of government. It makes sense. Why should lawmakers have two members when the President and the Judiciary (in the person of the Chief Justice as head of JBC) have only one? The three positions are protected under the Constitution as equals.

If we are to adhere to the current setup where the House and Senate are allowed two members, then the other branches of government should be awarded the same right. The President should be allowed two representatives. The other could be the executive secretary or any Cabinet member he chooses to designate. The Judiciary, on the other hand, would be allowed the Chief Justice and another judge from the appellate court. It would make more sense this way and bring the membership of JBC up from 8 to 10. Although, when you think about it, there is also a kind of sense in the current setup of 7 voting voices on the council. This way there will never be a stalemate.

* * *

The Commission on Audit is now looking into the books of government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions. Hopefully this audit will afford more transparency and abolish some of the hidden perks enjoyed by certain GOCCs. It is a common understanding that much of the money in these groups go to the pockets of the people who run them as opposed to the government. This is unfortunately usually the case because the salary in itself is not enough to sustain the employees. It’s a classic position of a rock and a hard place. If the government wants their workers to be non-corrupt and clean, they need to pay them enough to ensure they can take care of themselves through their salary alone and not be tempted to raid the government coffers.

Indeed, if the government wants to attract the best and the brightest (as they should be doing), they need to be given the right incentives or else they will join the private sector or look beyond our shores for better paying jobs. Filipinos actually greatly outnumber the Chinese and other nationalities in other countries. Remember the expression “the sun never sets on a Chinese”? The same can now easily be said for Filipinos as they can be found in every country in the world, even in the vast far flung reaches of foreign continents. I don’t understand why the government gives so much importance to our countrymen returning home. They warmly welcome them as “unsung heroes” and lay out the red carpet for their arrival. They are happily welcomed for bringing home the “precious dollar” to our country. For me, the fact that they can return home to be with families is something to be happy about, but we shouldn’t celebrate the fact that they need to leave our country to find work in the first place. We send out some of our best professionals to find work abroad because there is nothing for them. Shouldn’t we be trying to hold on to them? How will our country progress and grow when we lose so much of our talent to other opportunities. Many of our countrymen begin idealistic and thinking they will help change the country when they grow up. Then, reality sets in and they start to lose that idealism thinking there is no place for them here. It’s time we start nurturing our own talent. I think we may be pleasantly surprised with the outcomes.