China’s Xi Jinping may boycott Manila APEC meet

President Aquino is welcomed by China's President, APEC 2014 in Beijing.

President Aquino is welcomed by China’s President, APEC 2014 in Beijing.


China’s President Xi Jinping may boycott the 2015 Leaders Meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to be held in Manila on Nov. 18 and 19, a diplomatic source said.

The source said the reason for Xi’s change of mind about attending the this year’s APEC summit was the remarks of President Aquino last month during his visit to Japan comparing China’s activities in South China Sea to Nazi Germany’s expansionism which led to World War II.

“That remark really got the ire of Xi Jinping. Didn’t Aquino think that by comparing Nazi Germany to China today, he was in effect saying Xi is like Hitler? “ the source said.

The source further said Chinese leadership considered Aquino’s remark “an insult” to the Chinese people.

If Xi doesn’t come in November, it would be the first time that the leader of the world’s biggest economy, is absent in the annual meeting of an organization that promotes sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

Established in 1989, APEC is composed of 21 economies (not countries). They are Australia, Brunei Darussalam,Canada,Chile,People’s Republic of China,Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,Republic of Korea,Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru,Philippines,Russia ,Singapore Chinese Taipei,Thailand,United States, and Viet Nam.

APEC member economies are home to around 2.8 billion people and represent approximately 57 per cent of world GDP and 47 per cent of world trade in 2012.

If Xi would push through with the boycott, it would be the first time that a leader of a member economy‘s absence is due to an irritant with the host country. In 2013, U.S. President Obama didn’t attend the APEC summit in Bali, Indonesia but it was because of problems at home: failure of U.S. Congress to pass the budget caused government shutdown.

Last month’s remark by Aquino comparing Nazi Germany to China now was actually the second time he did it. He first made the comparison in a New York Times interview in February 2014.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????In his desire to convince countries to join the fight against China, which the Philippines has sued at the Arbitral Tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Aquino said:“I’m an amateur student of history and I’m reminded of… (I was) just watching several documentaries on World War II and especially how Germany was testing the waters and what the response were by various other European powers. And in several instances, when he was—when he annexed Austria, when they were putting up forces, developing certainties in the Rhineland, or a lot of violations of the Versailles agreement, they tested the waters and they were ready to back down if—for instance and in that aspect—France said ‘stop.’

“But, unfortunately, up to the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and eventually, the annexation of the entire country of Czechoslovakia, nobody said ‘stop.’ And the commentators on these documentaries were saying: ‘What if somebody said stop to Hitler at that point in time or to Germany at that time? Could we have avoided World War II?’”

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said,” We are deeply shocked at, strongly dissatisfied with and opposed to the absurd remarks made by the Philippine leader.”

As a sign of Beijing’s displeasure, Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Zhao Jianhua was a no-show at an event marking the 40th anniversary of the establishment of Philippine-China diplomatic relations last June 8 where President Aquino was the guest speaker.

Aquino extended the invitation to Xi for the Manila APEC summit when he attended the 2014 summit in Beijing last November. Aside from the formal Leaders’ meeting, Xi and Aquino had a pre-arranged 10-minute talk during the tree planting ceremony of leaders.

The brief meeting somehow thawed the strained relations between the two countries. In the last few months, however, tension between the two countries has intensified with the massive reclamations of China in its occupied features in the Spratlys.

Last week, the U.N. Arbitral Court at The Hague, Netherlands started the hearing of the case filed by the Philippines against China.

The rhetorics hurled against each other over South China Sea have caused widespread enmity between Filipino and Chinese people.

Last month, to mark Philippine Independence day, a protest rally was held in front of the China’s Consulate. The source said Chinese officials are worried that Xi would be subjected to protest rallies if he comes to Manila in November.

China’s Xi Jinping may boycott Manila APEC meet

President Aquino is welcomed by China's President, APEC 2014 in Beijing.

President Aquino is welcomed by China’s President, APEC 2014 in Beijing.


China’s President Xi Jinping may boycott the 2015 Leaders Meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to be held in Manila on Nov. 18 and 19, a diplomatic source said.

The source said the reason for Xi’s change of mind about attending the this year’s APEC summit was the remarks of President Aquino last month during his visit to Japan comparing China’s activities in South China Sea to Nazi Germany’s expansionism which led to World War II.

“That remark really got the ire of Xi Jinping. Didn’t Aquino think that by comparing Nazi Germany to China today, he was in effect saying Xi is like Hitler? “ the source said.

The source further said Chinese leadership considered Aquino’s remark “an insult” to the Chinese people.

If Xi doesn’t come in November, it would be the first time that the leader of the world’s biggest economy, is absent in the annual meeting of an organization that promotes sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

Established in 1989, APEC is composed of 21 economies (not countries). They are Australia, Brunei Darussalam,Canada,Chile,People’s Republic of China,Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,Republic of Korea,Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru,Philippines,Russia ,Singapore Chinese Taipei,Thailand,United States, and Viet Nam.

APEC member economies are home to around 2.8 billion people and represent approximately 57 per cent of world GDP and 47 per cent of world trade in 2012.

If Xi would push through with the boycott, it would be the first time that a leader of a member economy‘s absence is due to an irritant with the host country. In 2013, U.S. President Obama didn’t attend the APEC summit in Bali, Indonesia but it was because of problems at home: failure of U.S. Congress to pass the budget caused government shutdown.

Last month’s remark by Aquino comparing Nazi Germany to China now was actually the second time he did it. He first made the comparison in a New York Times interview in February 2014.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????In his desire to convince countries to join the fight against China, which the Philippines has sued at the Arbitral Tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Aquino said:“I’m an amateur student of history and I’m reminded of… (I was) just watching several documentaries on World War II and especially how Germany was testing the waters and what the response were by various other European powers. And in several instances, when he was—when he annexed Austria, when they were putting up forces, developing certainties in the Rhineland, or a lot of violations of the Versailles agreement, they tested the waters and they were ready to back down if—for instance and in that aspect—France said ‘stop.’

“But, unfortunately, up to the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and eventually, the annexation of the entire country of Czechoslovakia, nobody said ‘stop.’ And the commentators on these documentaries were saying: ‘What if somebody said stop to Hitler at that point in time or to Germany at that time? Could we have avoided World War II?’”

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said,” We are deeply shocked at, strongly dissatisfied with and opposed to the absurd remarks made by the Philippine leader.”

As a sign of Beijing’s displeasure, Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Zhao Jianhua was a no-show at an event marking the 40th anniversary of the establishment of Philippine-China diplomatic relations last June 8 where President Aquino was the guest speaker.

Aquino extended the invitation to Xi for the Manila APEC summit when he attended the 2014 summit in Beijing last November. Aside from the formal Leaders’ meeting, Xi and Aquino had a pre-arranged 10-minute talk during the tree planting ceremony of leaders.

The brief meeting somehow thawed the strained relations between the two countries. In the last few months, however, tension between the two countries has intensified with the massive reclamations of China in its occupied features in the Spratlys.

Last week, the U.N. Arbitral Court at The Hague, Netherlands started the hearing of the case filed by the Philippines against China.

The rhetorics hurled against each other over South China Sea have caused widespread enmity between Filipino and Chinese people.

Last month, to mark Philippine Independence day, a protest rally was held in front of the China’s Consulate. The source said Chinese officials are worried that Xi would be subjected to protest rallies if he comes to Manila in November.

Unable to defend The Hague junket, Lacierda turns catty

Harry Roque

Harry Roque

Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda was being catty when he dismissed as “KSP” lawyer Harry Roque’s criticism of the huge Philippine delegation to the hearing of the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal of the case filed by the Philippines against China in The Hague, Netherlands.

Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda

Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda

Roque raised a valid issue.

He said: “With only three oralists scheduled to make submissions before the Tribunal, why is it that we have a delegation of at least 35? I say at least because the number does not include our foreign counsels and their staff. I believe the correct number of our delegation should be at least 50. That’s 50 business class tickets and 50 de luxe rooms at five-star hotels in very expensive The Hague!”

Lacierda did not refute Roque’s numbers so I suppose the latter’s information was correct. From news reports from The Hague I have only the following names:

1. Solicitor General Florin Hilbay
2. Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario
3. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
4. Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza
5. Speaker Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte, Jr.
6. Executive Secretary Pacquito Ochoa, Jr.
7. Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin
8. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima
9. Sandiganbayan Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez.
10. Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs Secretary Ronald Llamas,
11. Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Benjamin Caguioa
12. Undersecretary Emmanuel Bautista, executive director of the Cabinet cluster on security, justice and peace
13. Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Menardo Guevarra,
14. Consul General Henry Bensurto
15. Paul S. Reichler and Lawrence H. Martin (Foley Hoag LLP, Washington DC, United States of America);
16. Professor Bernard H. Oxman (University of Miami School of Law, Miami, United States of America);
17. Professor Philippe Sands QC (Matrix Chambers, London, United Kingdom); and
18. Professor Alan Boyle (Essex Court Chambers, London, United Kingdom Paul Reichler, head of the Legal team
19. Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte

hilippine delegation fill the hearing room at the Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands. Photo by Abigail Valte.

hilippine delegation fill the hearing room at the Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands. Photo by Aigail Valte.

Valte defended the size of the delegation saying people should not “compute the support of a government united to fight for the country.”

We will never probably never know the true amount spent for this big delegation but I estimate it to be not less than P25 million.

Roque wrote in his blog: “I am currently in Pangasinan documenting how fishermen have been deprived of livelihood by the Chinese who have taken over their traditional fishing grounds in Panatag shoal. You don’t need a degree from the Kennedy School of Government to conclude that the money spent for the mirons in The Hague should have been used to assist the displaced fisher folks of Panatag instead. Oh well, only in this administration do you have policy makers fleecing off the people’s misery! Talk of the ultimate junket at The Hague! “

Roque further said, “All told, our delegation should not have exceeded 10 given that we have a full-fledged diplomatic mission there headed by our very capable Ambassador Jet Ledda and ably assisted by Atty Peachy Defensor, youngest sister of Inday Miriam. I would understand why the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court Justices and the Department of Foreign Affairs should be there. But 35 in addition to our foreign counsels? Come on!”

A lawyer who goes by the blog name “Saxnviolins” said it’s Lacierda who is KSP: Kulang sa paliwanag (short in explanation.)

Saxnviolins stressed that the The Hague occasion is “Legal arguments – hearing on jurisdiction.”

He asked: “Ano naman ang contribution ni Gazmin diyan? Is he going to testify on the military installations as proof of China’s aggressiveness? Eh hindi naman niya nakita, he is not a pilot. Besides, kung yun lang, you can introduce photos as evidence. In the words of Inday Badiday, careful, careful. Military matters are not within the jurisdiction of the ITLOS. because military action is the quintessential sovereign act, and therefore, the province of the ICJ.

“Si Belmonte? Ano naman ang silbi? What about Ochoa?”

His most scathing remark was reserved for Llamas: “At ang pinakamalaking ano ang silbi, yung pirated-DVD-purchaser, Ronald Llamas. Ano ang silbi niyan?”

Saxnviolins also wondered what has a justice in a graft court got to do with the PH case versus China?

“They brought along Sandiganbayan Justice Sarah Fernandez. What? May Philippine graft and corruption angle ba yan? The only graft and corruption I see is the waste of tax money on a junket,” he said.

He said it’s true Fernandez was once with the Office of the Solicitor General. “So what? Isang katerba na nga ang foreign counsel. I doubt there is anything they can contribute that Paul Reichler does not already know.”
Another blogger , MP Rivera,surmised what Llamas is doing in the hearing in The Hague: “Baka kukuha ng record si Llamas sa mga hearing at ibebenta sa Recto. Sideline nga naman!”

Are you sure it’s the hearing that he would be making a video recording? Don’t forget The Hague is just a short train ride to Amsterdam – where window shopping is of the lusty kind.

The story of two unreceived notices: 1.Binays of Makati

Binay supporters throw monobloc chairs at police

Binay supporters throw monobloc chairs at police

Is the scene in Makati – Mayor Junjun Binay defying the Ombudsman’s suspension order – a preview of a Jejomar Binay presidency?

Early evening news yesterday reported that finally, the suspension order by the Office of the Ombudsman of Makati Mayor Junjun Binay was served. But not without violence.

Supporters of the Binays were seen throwing monobloc chairs at police officers. Vice President Jejomar Binay was also seen berating Senior Superintendent Elmer Jamias, deputy director of the Southern Police District (SPD), accusing the latter of preventing their supporters from entering the City hall premises where they were holding a rally/vigil.

This second suspension on Junjun Binay is in connection with the allegedly anomalous construction of the Makati Science High School.

As of this writing, the Court of Appeals has not issued a temporary restraining order being asked by Binay.
It will be recalled that last March the CA stopped the suspension of Binay in connection with the overpriced construction of the Makati City Hall Building 2. The Ombudsman questioned before the Supreme Court the legality of the CA TRO.

The public is awaiting the SC’s decision on that case.

Yesterday, amidst Binay’s defiance, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales issued the following statement:

“The Office of the Ombudsman is independent and performs its mandate according to law and the evidence. It will never succumb to any perceived pressure or be blinded or deafened by political grandstanding. It will not tolerate open defiance of constitutional processes or calls for mob rule. This is about the right of the Filipino people to hold their public servants to the highest bar of accountability and to bring them before the bar of justice if they are accused of betraying the public trust.

“Public office is a public trust. No official, from the lowest to the highest, is exempt from accountability. When the Office of the Ombudsman, in accordance with its Constitutional mandate, finds compelling grounds to issue a preventive suspension order, it will do so.

“Preventive suspension is not punitive as it is preventive in nature meant to protect the integrity of the investigation process. Public interest requires that those in positions of power and authority do not have the opportunity to tamper with public documents and harass witnesses to frustrate the ends of justice.”

Watch the full video here:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/metro-manila/06/30/15/full-video-binay-supporters-throw-chairs-cops

Soldier turned legislator Gary Alejano’s concerns on the BBL

Rep. Gary Alejano interpellating during the deliberations on BBL.

Rep. Gary Alejano interpellating during the deliberations on BBL.

No one was surprised that the Supreme Court junked the petition questioning the legality of the Bangsamoro Basic Law which was still being deliberated by both chambers of Congress when it adjourned sine die last June 11.

The BBL missed its timetable of the Senate and House of Representatives passing it by June 11.

Supporters of the legislation which promises lasting peace for Muslim Filipinos and the country are hopeful that the resumption of the deliberations on the bill after President Aquino’s last State of the Nation Address on July 17 would lead to bill’s eventual passage into a law.

When that time comes, more groups will be questioning it before the Supreme Court.

Before the adjournment of the House of Representatives, Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano raised valid issues during the interpellation of Antipolo Rep. Romeo Acop, one of the vice chairs Hoc Committee on the Bangsamoro Basic Law.

Alejano, who was detained for seven years for his participation in what is known as the Oakwood Mutiny” was a captain in the Philippine Marines. He spent most of his tours of duty in Bangsamoro areas like Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Basilan, and Sulu.

In short, he has seen realities on the ground.

“The issue of peace process is very sensitive to me because it is the ordinary soldiers and ordinary Filipinos who suffer in this long-drawn war in Mindanao, Pilipino laban sa Pilipino. It is, therefore, our advocacy in Magdalo to find solutions for a lasting peace in Mindanao,” Alejano said.

Alejano is a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Bangsamoro Basic Law; Special Committee on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity; and of the Committee on National Defense and Security.

Alejano raised five concerns on the BBL bill that they were deliberating on:

First, compelling reasons why Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao has to be abolished;

Second, the questionable role of Malaysia as mediator to the GPH-MILF peace process;

Third, the trustworthiness of the group that the government is negotiating with, in this case, the MILF;

Fourth, the negotiation, per se, in the events leading up to the signing of the peace agreements;

Fifth, the arrangement that would be implemented after the signing of House Bill No. 5811 into law.

Due to space constraints, I’ll focus on Alejano’s concern about the role of Malaysia in the negotiation considering that the Philippines and Malaysia have unresolved territorial claims over Sabah.

Alejano said it was the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, with whom the government is engaged in a peace process with the BBL as implementing legislation that wanted Malaysia as the broker.

Here’s a portion of Alejano’s interpellation:

“As far as I remember, it is not the government of the Republic of the Philippines who requested for Malaysia. It was MILF. The government of the Republic of the Philippines would have wanted other countries, neutral, independent, disinterested, because we know that we have a standing claim to Sabah. But because the MILF insisted for Malaysia, the government gave in.

“Malaysia’s role is inherently questionable for being in a state of conflict of interest. Political support for rebel movements disqualifies one from becoming an intermediary or intercessor for rebels who come to the negotiating table. The fact is that it was Malaysia who, through the decades, supported, trained and gave sanctuary to rebel leaders and the rebel movement in Mindanao. It was the Malaysian government who funded, trained and provided sanctuary to the MNLF since its inception, to the detriment of the Filipino people, until rebel groups signed a peace agreement with the government.

“It is a known fact that aside from being a supply and communication center for Moro rebels in the ‘60s and ‘70s, Malaysia regularly held paramilitary training for these rebels in Sabah. This was government-sponsored. When the MILF suffered heavy losses in combat, MILF leaders such as Sheikh Salamat Hashim would seek refuge in Malaysia and under the Malaysian government’s support. Adding to an already clear conflict of interest is that Malaysia is very much aware of the Philippines’ standing claim to Sabah. Malaysia’s claim is diametrically opposed to the interest of the Philippine government. When Misuari and MNLF pledged support to the Sultanate of Sulu in claiming back Sabah, it is interesting to see that Malaysia dropped all the support to MNLF.

“Aside from the MNLF, the Sultanate of Sulu was sidelined as well in the GPH-MILF peace talks. It would not be too remote to say that Malaysian support to the MILF was in exchange for the latter to drop or stay silent on the Sabah claim.”

Alejano’s concern has found basis in the self-abasing attitude of the Aquino government to Malaysia.

Last March, Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman arrogantly said there is no Philippine claim on Sabah when asked for his reaction on VERA Files story on the proposal of the Aquino government to withdraw a 2009 protest to Malaysia on Sabah in exchange for a declaration related to Spratlys that would bolster Philippine case against China.

Anifah said, “Is there a claim? We have never recognised any claim (by the Philippines on Sabah.)”

The Aquino government did not protest Anifah’s arrogant statement.

The Sultan of Sulu, citizens of the Philippines, has title over huge part of timber and mineral rich Sabah, formerly North Borneo, which covers 22 percent of the Malaysia total area.

Amina Razul, whose family is a member of the Sultanate of Sulu said they have been receiving more than 50 years from the Malaysian government “5,000 ringgit (P62,600) a month.”