‘Transition presidency’ radical but constitutional—NSA Gonzales

31 March 2009

THE proposal for a transition president in 2010 is radical, but it is within the Constitution.

National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales asserted this yesterday in reaction to doubts raised by some opposition senators about his proposal’s constitutionality and his motive.

“The idea calls for the election in 2010, not designation now or later, of a transition president. That is why it is addressed both to those who want to contest the presidency in 2010 and to the electorate,” the Malacanang official explained.

“When we elect in 2010 a president, we will be electing a president with a full term of six years. But this new president, if he truly understands the needs of our society and he truly wants to lead or start its transformation, knows that he has to devote the first two to three years of his term to carryout fundamental political reforms before he can embark on the path to social and economic progress,” Gonzales said.

The national security chief said the political reforms that the new president will have to carryout may lead to a new political system that will possibly require new elections under the new system.

“What is unconstitutional about this?” Gonzales asked.

Gonzales reiterated his belief that the country’s problems are so grave that it needs no less than an overhaul, but he pointed out that his proposal comes from the perspective that rebuilding the country requires collective leadership or governance with the people.

“Every crucial decision for the change, recovery and progress of the country should be made with the people,” he emphasized. That is why, after carrying out the political reforms, the transition president should seek a new mandate from the people under a new system if he or she is interested in continued leadership of the country.

The Malacanang official recognized that his proposal is “certainly radical to many politicians particularly those who are dreaming already of their own turn at a six-year presidency.”

“My proposal is not a legal framework for succession. It is not even about change of leadership. It is about change of mindset and of attitude with regard to the forthcoming 2010 presidential election, and it is a challenge addressed to both our political leaders, particularly those who want to be the next president, and to our people,” Gonzales emphasized.

He expressed again his fear that, without change of mindset of the country’s political leaders and electorate, “we will only have more of the same in 2010; the same corrupt and dysfunctional political system, and the same elitist and self-serving politicians.”

“If we do, then 2010 will be another wasted opportunity for real societal change. We will have another six years of bad politics, of unending political squabbles, at the expense of our hungry people and poorly educated children,” Gonzales said.

(30)

Nation needs transition president in 2010—NSA Gonzales

29 March 2009

TRANSITION president, anyone?

A transition president, according to National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, is what the country needs in 2010. He made this declaration yesterday as he reiterated his assessment that the way the nation does politics is the greatest threat to its well-being and its future.

“Because of our dysfunctional politics, which is also the mother of corruption in government, many of our people are going hungry, our children are poorly educated, the poor do not have health and social securities, and the desperate are driven to crime or rebellion,” the Malacanang official said.

Gonzales believes that Philippine society’s problems are so grave that truly addressing them requires no less than its overhaul, which in turn requires fundamental reforms, particularly political reforms.

At the heart of the reforms that we need for our national repair is change of government system, which requires Charter change, he said.

“We need Charter change, but we will never get to doing it until we have a transition president who is willing to carry it out and call for a new election under a new political system afterwards,” Gonzales explained.

Gonzales said the country’s transition period may take two to three years.

If the transition president is still interested in the leadership of the country after the transition period, he or she can seek a new mandate from the people under the new political system, he added.

The Malacanang official challenged the country’s so-called presidentiables to be this transition president. “Who among our present leaders who want to be president is willing to be this transition president?” he asked.

“I can see that beyond the traditional politicians, we have leaders who are presenting themselves as reform candidate or are being pushed to be so in 2010. Perhaps, Brother Mike Velarde can be this transition president. Even Mr. Estrada, if he really wants to seek again the presidency, can consider becoming this transition president,” Gonzales suggested.

He said his challenge is addressed to all those who want to be the next president of the country, but he cited Velarde and Estrada because “these two have said they are willing, if elected, to serve only half of the term for the president during which they intend to spearhead the country’s needed reforms.”

He said the present administration can also begin the transition mode for the country.

The national security adviser noted that the country’s politicians, both from the administration and from the opposition, have set into electoral mode but are heading to a routine 2010 elections that will bring only change of leaders and nothing else.

“The way I see things, we will have more of the same in 2010. We will not have the societal change that we need to finally put an end to our recurring political crisis and to move our people on the path to a new Philippines,” Gonzales said.

(30)

China shows might in South China Sea

Security chief Gonzales worried by move

By Christian V. Esguerra
Philippine Daily Inquirer Agence France-Presse

Posted date: March 16, 2009

MANILA, Philippines—China’s dispatch of a state-of-the-art patrol ship in the South China Sea doesn’t necessarily smack of gunboat diplomacy, but Malacañang is taking it seriously.

National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales Sunday said he would call for an immediate meeting of the Cabinet’s security group to discuss the Chinese action in the wake of Beijing’s protest over the signing of the Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law.

“The deployment of the patrol ship was a message and we cannot just ignore it,” Gonzales told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a phone interview. “We have to take it seriously.”

China’s state media Sunday reported that the country had dispatched its “most modern patrol ship” in the South China Sea following an incident with a US naval vessel and the signing of the Philippine baselines law.

“This should remind us that even in this era of dialogue and understanding in the world, there will always be nations that will show might and threaten perceived weak nations like us,” Gonzales said.

He said the meeting of the national security cluster would tackle the Philippine government’s response to the ship deployment in the context of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

“That’s where we should be going,” he said. “The only thing we can do is to resort to diplomacy.”

In the declaration, China and Southeast Asian nations agreed to “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays and other features, and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.”

Baselines bill ‘illegal’

China had earlier protested the signing of the baselines bill, describing it as “illegal.”

But the Philippine government maintained that it was standing by its claim on the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal—an area potentially rich in oil.

The baselines law excludes the disputed Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal from the archipelago, treating them instead as part of a “regime of islands.”

Still, China was adamant that the Philippines was claiming its territories in the Spratlys, particularly Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands.

Gonzales said the Chinese protest could be considered a form of diplomatic “posturing.”

Press Secretary Cerge Remonde Sunday described Beijing’s move as a “normal conduct in international diplomacy.”

“We should not be worried about it,” Remonde said in his Sunday media forum on state-owned Radyo ng Bayan. “The United Nations will be the final arbiter of the issue.”

UN Law of the Sea

Remonde maintained that the baselines law was consistent with requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

“What our President and our government (officials) did was in accordance to their sworn constitutional duty which is to uphold and protect the sovereignty of our country,” he said.

Remonde said the Philippine government would also have lodged a similar diplomatic protest if China or other claimants of the disputed island came up with an official action similar to the baselines law.

No official reaction has been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, but a DFA official who did not wish to be named said that the Chinese move seemed to comply with the 2002 declaration, particularly its provision on notification coursed through official media.

Beijing News said the Chinese vessel would conduct patrols of what it called China’s exclusive maritime zone in the disputed waters surrounding the Paracel and Spratlys, according to Agence France Presse.

The report said that the converted naval rescue ship would aid Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels.

Standoff in South China Sea

Tensions in the area rose when the United States sent destroyers to international waters off southern China to protect a naval surveillance patrol that was involved in a standoff with Chinese vessels.

China said the US patrol vessels were within its 200-kilometer economic exclusive zone, but the United States has insisted they were in international waters.

The Spratly and Paracel island chains have been flash points for years.

The Spratlys are claimed in full or part by China and Vietnam, as well as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and the Paracels are claimed by China, which now occupies them, as well as by Vietnam and Taiwan. With reports from Jerome Aning and Agence France-Presse.