|
I AM now entertaining doubts that President Arroyo
had been fully informed on the joint exploration agreement among the
Philippine National Oil Co., China National Offshore Oil and Petro-Vietnam
in the South China Sea, including the contested Spratly Islands.
I note a recent report that the
original map of the 148,886 square-kilometer area covered by the
Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) among the three firms was
later revised. Was GMA given the wrong map when she endorsed the
agreement after its signing at the Makati Shangri-La Hotel on March
14, 2005? If this is so, then her advisers who should have been on
their toes always, miserably failed to advise her on the JMSU’s
legal ramifications.
It is uncontested that the JMSU
exploration area includes a big portion of the South China Sea that
is within Philippine territory and outside the claims of China and
Vietnam. The opposition is understandably crying murder over what it
called “sell-out” of Philippine sovereignty. The critics said
that this could be an impeachable offense.
The Spratlys is being claimed in
whole or in part by the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Taiwan, Indonesia and Thailand. The competing claims over the chain
of South China Sea islands that is reportedly rich in oil and
minerals have been cited as a potential flashpoint in the region.
When GMA was shown a copy of the JMSU with the map of the coverage
area, she endorsed it, saying the JMSU is a means to turn “the
area of potential conflict into area of mutual cooperation.”
Perhaps, had she known that a great portion covered by the JMSU was
within Philippine territory and outside the claims of China and
Vietnam, she would have been less expansive with her words.
The exploration area is also
reportedly encroaching on that previously designated as exploration
site by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to Forum
Energy, a British firm. Jose Raymund Apostol, president of Forum
Energy’s subsidiary in the Philippines, said that the British firm
got in 2002 the DENR license to explore for oil off the Palawan
coast, which was included in the JMSU site.
Now, the opposition is linking
the JMSU to the $8 billion in official development assistance from
China. Is this a case of the fallacy in logic called “post hoc,
ergo soc,” or “after it, therefore, because of it?” We will
know soon with the Senate set to investigate the JMSU. Sen. Ping
Lacson has filed Resolution 319 seeking an inquiry into the matter.
Senate President Manuel Villar said the inquiry is urgent and
endorsed it. The probe might start after the Lenten recess.
Probes without direction
Speaking of Senate inquiries, I
am afraid that the national broadband network project would
continue until hell freezes over. Last November, Sen. Alan Peter
Cayetano, chairman of the Senate blue-ribbon committee, said he
would conduct only one or two more hearings on the NBN before
wrapping things up. Last week, he again said the same thing—“two
more hearings.” But at the rate new witnesses appear and new names
are mentioned, I doubt if the probe will end within the first
regular session. Definitely, the opposition will squeeze it dry for
all its propaganda value. The anti-administration sentiment has to
be continually fed with new allegations of its alleged rapacity and
nothing could do this better than testimonies by installment.
Sen. Dick Gordon, who does not
relish being called an administration senator, does not find it
amusing that Senate inquiries should be heading in many directions
and with senators remaining clueless on when they would end.
Dick has filed Senate Resolution
No. 321, requiring witnesses to execute a sworn statement before
appearing in probes that may involve criminal prosecution
afterwards. The present Senate rules do not require any deposition
although witnesses are required to swear under oath that they would
speak nothing but the truth before giving their oral testimony.
Dick said that the present rules
are the main reason why Senate investigations are dragging on and
why many senators seemed to be groping in the dark while questioning
witnesses with their lack of prior knowledge on what the witnesses
would testify about.
Dick said he didn’t want the
Senate to go on a fishing expedition all the time because this
would deprive the people of the ability to understand and
follow what is happening
I agree that a deposition would
minimize lying by witnesses, prevent the Senate from going into a
wild goose chase, and shorten inquiries in aid of legislation. But,
will his colleagues agree? A shorter and faster probe would mean
less opportunity for a number of them to gain media mileage.
efrendanao2003@yahoo.com
|
