The President risks an impeachment

I considered my younger years to be a period of exploration and the senior years that I now live to be that of reflection. When I was a young teacher of Political Law, I spared few minutes of my classes, now and then, to look at events in the context of what lawyers are fond of discussing - Rule of Law.

I would specially examine policy pronouncements of government officials in relation to existing legal parameters. However diverse were the facts and issues attending an event, and no matter how noble sounding the declarations of power wielders were, there were always legal precepts to apply. In theory, whatever those applicable precepts were, they would rule and everybody was supposed to submit to such laws.

I reflect on the embarrassment suffered by the former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Albert del Rosario, at the hands of immigration personnel of Hong Kong, an autonomous administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. Last week and upon landing at Hong Kong Airport, del Rosario, was reportedly detained for hours, subjected to investigation and sent back to the Philippines.

A principle of public international law respects the right of every state to refuse entry to any foreigner to its territory. The state does not need to justify its refusal. It is its fundamental right, quite certainly a rule of law, that cannot be legally questioned. Negatively stated, no person, no matter how high and mighty is he in his own country, has a right to demand that he be allowed to enter the territory of another state. So that even if that person, like del Rosario, holds a diplomatic passport that should otherwise entitle him to certain protocol and recognized privileges, the host country, China in this case, is not legally flawed in denying the foreigner’s entry.

This was not an isolated case even if we have not heard of another foreigner who was denied entry to Hong Kong. I would not have been surprised if an American, whether government officer or private businessman, had been refused to visit that island in the light of the US-China trade war. But, only weeks earlier, former Supreme Court Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales suffered the same cruel and humiliating fate. Unverified reports said that the lady justice, despite her advanced age, was arrested for unspecified ground and interrogated before she was supposedly cleared to enter Hong Kong. We learned though that she courageously faced hostile escorts to tell them that she was uninterested to step on Chinese soil.

The other day, President Rodrigo Duterte, announced that China and the Philippines are friends. This is not new. Our state is not at war with any other country. After all, the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and only congress can declare the existence of a state of war. These are all written in our constitution.

What was new (shocking is the more appropriate word) to me was the President’s pronouncement allowing Chinese fishermen (because we are friends) to enter an area in the West Philippine Sea which just few years ago was declared by an International Arbitral Tribunal to be within our Exclusive Economic Zone.

The President permits the entry of foreigners, that these fishermen are, for no other purpose but to reap from the riches of our natural resources. Duterte should be conscious that his declaration breaches a constitutional provision. In order not to err, let me quote the constitution: “The state shall protect the nation’s marine wealth .... and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens”.   This exclusivity is never tempered by friendly relations.

Only Filipinos can use and enjoy our marine wealth. I dare say that the Presidential statement is tantamount to a culpable violation of the constitution and he runs the risk of an impeachment. Is the rule of law meaningful to anyone of us Filipinos to be courageous enough to initiate an impeachment complaint?