Day: January 15, 2009

I plead “guilty” to not having paid attention to atrocities in the Gaza strip in the Middle East.

I know that our own problems here should not be an excuse to be oblivious to the inhumanities being perpetrated on other people in other parts of the world.. We should join hands in condemning lawlessness and injustice, wherever they are committed. They have no place in a civilized world.

Harry Roque, professor of Public International Law at the UP College of Law and at the Philippine Judicial Academy and chairman of the Center for International Law, enlightens us with the following commentary:

“It is unfortunate that the crisis at the Gaza strip has taken a back seat to two ongoing domestic issues: those of the Alabang Boys and the Pangandaman Valley Golf incident. While perhaps the distant location of Gaza and its lack of “soap opera’ appeal may largely be to blame for the lack of serious discussion on the Gaza issue, it is imperative that equal importance be accorded to Gaza since it involves important rule of law issues that are equally relevant to the Philippines, what with our armed conflicts against the New People’s Army and the MILF, as well as our unresolved territorial controversies that may also lead to further armed conflicts.

“Thus far, bulk of the reportage by Philippine media on the Gaza crisis has been on the plight of OFWs who continue to be stranded in the place of conflict. This is a sorry reflection of how Philippine foreign policy has been crafted of late: parochially reduced only to how events overseas may directly affect our overseas workers constituting the Diaspora. Not much has been said as to why there are mammoth rallies around the globe against this latest instance of Israeli adventurism. That is, that by unilaterally resorting to the use of force, Israel has again showed its defiance to International Law that prohibits the use of force and restrictively allowing the same only to circumstances constituting self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations. Imperfect as the UN may presently be, it has nonetheless been largely instrumental in preventing what the UN Charter describes as “scourges of war.” This prohibition on the use of force is in fact the most important rule stated in the UN Charter and one that has proven largely effective in preventing armed conflicts of the scale that ravaged humanity in the past two world wars.

“Why Israel has not opted to have the Hamas issue debated in the Security Council is open to speculation. The fact though is that if the missile attacks are indeed threats to international peace, the international community has already granted the Security Council primary jurisdiction to deal with these types of threats. For Israel and its ally, the US, to now insist on unilateral use of force is a blatant disregard of a cardinal rule recognized by all civilized states.

“Israel of course will claim that its recent offensive is but an exercise of self-defense. In fact, it has stated that it will only stop when and if Hamas stops launching missiles into Israeli territory. But the question is: Self-defense against whom?

“Hamas is a non-state party that Israel accuses of operating in the territory of its neighboring states. Without accusing either Palestine or Lebanon of aggression, it has waged wars against both these states solely on the ground that Hamas operatives are found in the territories of these two states. There is the further issue of proportionality. Assuming Israel may invoke self-defense against a non-state actor, has the force that it has utilized proportional to the rocket attacks launched against its territory. Surely, a complete dislocation of the civilian populations in Gaza belies proportionality.

“Meanwhile, the death toll as a result of the crisis continues to rise. Included in the victims are protected individuals under humanitarian law such as civilians, including women and children. What is the sense, for instance, of targeting even the 11 children and four wives of an alleged Hamas leader? Has there since developed a principle attributing criminal guilt solely by virtue of family relations? Likewise, what was the logic in targeting not one, but three UN-run schools?

“The fact that Israel has been targeting civilian homes is a breach of humanitarian law itself since the Geneva conventions prohibit combatants from targeting civilian infrastructures. And yes, the fact that Israel has been violating the binding norms of humanitarian law apparently with impunity is equally deplorable since these grave breaches weaken the rule-enforcing value of the law. Why should our own soldiers in the AFP, or the NPA and the MILF, desist from targeting civilians when the Israelis have seemingly gotten away with it?

“Ultimately the Gaza issue should be accorded equal importance as the Alabang Boys and the Valley Golf incident because it undermines the rule of law on the prohibition against the unilateral use of force and the non-derogable rule according protection to civilians and other non-combatants in times of armed conflicts. The Gaza issue could spell disaster to countries like the Philippines. For while Israel may have the confidence to engage in military adventurism and commit grave breaches of humanitarian law owing to its superior military strength, countries like the Philippines can only rely on other countries’ compliance with the rule of law against threats of these nature. Think of the Spratlys. Think of China. Think of Malaysia. Think of terrorists operating in Mindanao. This is why Filipinos should take the Gaza incident more seriously. Because unless the rule of law is observed, our tora-toras will simply be no match to our potential state adversaries’ military might.”

Sees all Marcelino-led anti-drug operations as illegal

by Evangeline de Vera

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez yesterday cast doubt on anti-drug operations conducted by Maj. Ferdinand Marcelino, head of the
Special Enforcement Services of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, saying the Marines officer is not authorized to hold any civilian position, being still in active military duty.

Gonzalez said a constitutional provision could in effect invalidate the operations conducted by Marcelino, considering that his appointment to the PDEA is unconstitutional.

Gonzalez cited a constitutional provision that “(n)o member of the Armed Forces in the active service shall at any time be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or any of their subsidiaries.”

“Dapat alisin sila (military personnel) diyan. They should go back to barracks. As far as I’m concerned, the act done when you are not authorized should not have any bearing whatsoever. (Marcelino) has no authority, (thus) all his acts are illegal,” he said.

The PDEA, through Derrick Carreon, chief of the public information office, said Gonzalez’ argument “remains to be a constitutional debate” and would be “properly debated upon” when the Senate starts its inquiry.

He pointed to sub-paragraph q, Sec. 84 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 which he said allows the PDEA to utilize personnel from other government agencies in its anti illegal drugs campaign.

Section 84 is on “powers and duties of the PDEA.”

Sub-paragraph q states the PDEA shall “initiate and undertake a national campaign for drug prevention and drug control programs, where it may enlist the assistance of any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and or -controlled corporations, in the anti-illegal drugs drive, which may include the use of their respective personnel, facilities, and resources for a more resolute detection and investigation of drug-related crimes and prosecution of the drug traffickers.”

PDEA chief Dionisio Santiago said Marcelino’s case of holding a civilian position is a legal question that has already been supported by previous Supreme Court rulings. He failed to specify these rulings.

Carreon said PDEA has a standing memorandum of agreement with the Armed Forces and other government agencies for them to lend to the PDEA some of their men in the fight against illegal drugs.

To date, he said PDEA has more than 900 organic personnel and needs at least 950 more.

He said other agencies like the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group and the Department of Foreign Affairs have uniformed personnel detailed with them.

“Sa amin lang nafo-focus because of the present predicament. Hindi na dapat pinag-aawayan ito. Kami nga tumatahimik na kasi may order na sa taas for us to keep quiet,” he added.

The PDEA and the DOJ’s anti-narcotics task force are at odds over the release of three drug suspects arrested by the PDEA in buy-bust operations led by Marcelino in September last year.

The task force, in a resolution dated Dec. 2, 2008, dismissed the charges against Richard Brodett, Joseph Tecson and Jorge Joseph for alleged lapses committed by the PDEA in the conduct of the arrests.

The three yielded illegal substances like ecstasy, marijuana and cocaine.

Gonzalez refused to comment on whether the arrest of the three should be considered invalid because of Marcelino’s supposed lack of authority. He said the issue is now the subject of an investigation and of the petition for habeas corpus pending before the Court of Appeals.

The legality of the previous drug operations involving Marcelino, according to Gonzalez, could be raised before the court by the parties concerned.

Gonzalez said the PDEA should rid its ranks of all active military personnel as their presence in the anti-drug agency as agents violates the Constitution.

He said that if Marcelino would insist on conducting buy-bust operations or hold similar civilian positions, “his acts can be questioned.”

He said that even Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro raised the concern during their discussion with President Arroyo recently.

“As far as I am concerned, the act done when you are not authorized should not even have any bearing or whatsoever because you have no authority… The Constitution is not just a simple law, it is the Constitution,” he said.

Gonzalez said he never raised the issue with the President because he does not want to be accused of trying to get back at the PDEA officers who floated a supposed bribery attempt.

He said PDEA agents must be drilled on the proper way of handling evidence gathered in operations against drug traffickers.

“These PDEA people are basically military oriented. You know, obey first before you complain,” he said.

Santiago said he has advised Marcelino to no longer appear before the NBI to give a statement because the major already talked to NBI agent Dulce Ricafort.

He said he advised Marcelino to just give his affidavit to the independent panel that will investigate the alleged bribery attempt.

An affidavit was submitted to the NBI by John “Johnny Midnight” Joseph Jr., father of suspect Jorge Joseph, saying he did not offer P50 million for the dismissal of the charges.

“I am not personally aware nor do I have any personal knowledge of any purported acts of allegedly bribery as narrated by General Santiago and Major Marcelino,” he said.

“In fact, during the televised congressional hearings, I heard General Santiago admitting that the P50 million was only ‘made-up’ by him and that the same was part of his ‘psy-war campaign,’” he added. – With Raymond Africa

Wait, there’s more!: Buy her a gift this Valentines! or send her flowers!