More lies from Contreras (Part II)

IN OUR Part I of this “Contreras – caught in web of lies” article, I explained the $500-million U.S. budget for U.S. state-sponsored anti-China propaganda and how it has spawned “jukebox scholarship” especially among our intellectual “chattering classes,” including academics.

Manila Times columnist and former La Salle professor Antonio Contreras wrote a piece on anti-EDCA advocates like yours truly alleging us of “war and fearmongering.”

This jukebox scholar got entangled in his own contradictions in accusing the Philippines of conducting “its foreign policy in the context of whether it will please or offend China for fear that if offended, it may declare war on us” – a statement which by itself is using the slandering but baseless “China threat” fearmongering and smokescreen for the real global threat menacing Asia now – the warmongering U.S.A.

To settle the “China threat to Taiwan” issue, let us turn to the March 8, 2023 testimony under oath of U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to a U.S. Congressional hearing saying, “It’s not our assessment that China wants to go to war…” over Taiwan.

China does not need war; 50 percent of Taiwan exports go to China, 2-million out of its 24-million citizens live, work and trade in China mainland, while the political pendulum is now going against separatism.

In hyping the “China Taiwan threat” issue, Contreras is the one actually using “war and fearmongering” to boost the acceptance for the US bases on Philippine shores.

China and President Xi Jinping on the other hand always vow to “fulfill Taiwan ‘reunification’ by peaceful means” but the U.S. always dangles the pledge to support Taiwan surrogates if and when it “declares independence.” Such an eventuality would automatically trigger consequences.

Contreras accuses Chinese Ambassador Huang Xilian of “holding hostage the Filipinos who are now living, working and studying in Taiwan to cow us into submission” which makes me wonder if this scholar really read the ambassador’s speech. Amb. Huang said:

“Some tried to find excuse for the new EDCA sites by citing the safety of the 150,000 OFWs in Taiwan, while China is the last country that wishes to see conflict over the Strait because people on both sides are Chinese… The Philippines is advised to unequivocally oppose ‘Taiwan independence’ rather than stoking the fire by offering the US access to the military bases near the Taiwan Strait if you care genuinely about the 150,000 OFWs.”

The US EDCA bases promoters are using all sorts of lame arguments to push acceptance of EDCA, including claiming to protect our 150,000 OFWs in Taiwan – an argument that backfired as EDCA pushes the US war on China whether China wants it or not, but our 150,000 OFWs will get caught in the middle.

Hence, Amb. Huang was protecting our OFWs from potential harm of a war the EDCA bases will encourage the U.S. to aggressively advance.

Contreras then goes into a convoluted defense of the legality of the EDCA but fatally for his arguments cites Art. 18, Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constitution which states:

“After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”

Despite that provision the Supreme Court in 2016 accepted EDCA, four justices cogently dissented and one abstained.

The Supreme Court had first to be manhandled by the Noynoy Aquino administration to get its desired result. Aquino at that time falsely accuse then Chief Justice Renato Corona of financial misconduct then bribed 20 senators of between P50 to P 100-million each to impeach Corona.

But as we saw, all the charges against Corona were subsequently dismissed.

The P50 to 100-Million bribe for 20 senators was confirmed to the media by Senator Panfilo Lacson in September 25, 2013 who refused the amount.

The compliant chief justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno, who benefited from Corona’s illegal removal, approved EDCA by claiming that EDCA is an Executive Agreement and not a treaty despite this decision clearly violating Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 as quoted above. As an executive agreement, the excuse was created to not have EDCA passed thru the scrutiny of the Senate.

It must be noted that the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago was vehemently opposed to the approval of the EDCA without Senate ratification, and so was then Senator Bongbong Marcos, Jr. and 13 others. So the approval of EDCA needs to be revisited and questioned, as many writers like former Senator Kit Tatad has written several times about in his Manila Times column.

The Supreme Court is not infallible, especially on highly politicized issues like the EDCA decision that should be questioned again (to be continued).