The Philippines Renounces War

The 1987 constitution, under Section 2, Article ll captioned Declaration of Principles and State policies proclaimed  and I quote, “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

The aforequoted provision is one among many where the Philippines find the convenience to justify inaction on China’s incursion. Just recently, the press secretary impliedly cited the foregoing constitutional provision to create an impression that the Philippine government is tied to the hands. The statement was given in reaction to the Chinese reclamation at the Mabini Reef which is well within the Philippine territory. The statement was in addition to the reiteration that despite of the despicable act the Philippines will continue to adhere with the rule of law.

Nothing is wrong with those statements, in fact it amply displayed the incumbency’s loyalty to the letters of the charter, but if those statement’s are to be examined against the current circumstances at the West Philippine Sea and the South China Sea as a whole, the statements may be regarded as inappropriate if not at all misleading.

There is no such thing as a rule of international law in the South China Sea. If there is indeed a rule of law, the world would have police China. Even the Code of Conduct that aims to maintain the status quo is not binding and was actually and blatantly abandoned by China. The law that governs the West Philippine Sea is the law of the Philippines, which includes international rules it had ratified and automatically adopted as part of the law of the land by constitutional virtue. Unauthorized extraction of marine life and natural resources, incursions in water, land and air domain are offenses under Philippine laws, which has criminal and civil penalties. It is a police matter. It is the right of a free state like the Philippines to compel adherence to its laws and it is the responsibility and sworn duty of the government to enforce those laws. These are in fact the laws that rule not only the sea west of the Philippines but the whole of the archipelago and its surrounding waters. This is the real law that is supposed to rule.

In performing the Philippine government’s function which is to uphold the rule of law, that  is the applicable Philippine law, it is only and will  constitute an enforcement action that can hardly qualify as an act of war that can violate the aforecited constitutional constraint. On the same basis that  the Philippine authorities has  effected the arrest of 20 or so Chinese poachers with 300 or so endangered “Pawikans” or giant sea turtles caught in their possession,  the prosecution of the perpetrators of illegal occupation  in  its waters is even warranted. The Philippine government should maintain consistency and unselective of the law it should be enforcing, to do otherwise would amount to self mockery. The Philippine government altogether should stop as a justification the cited constitutional provision since it cannot and will not apply to the current predicament. It should refuse to be convince that it is the most convenient refuge for its inadequacies. Nobody wants war, especially Filipinos, but if the rule of law is often cherish to prevail by the Philippine government, then let it prevail indiscriminately, unselectively, and unfearfully. The Philippines will just have to be clear and definite on which law  it is talking about or  should really be talking about.