A NEWS story in last Tuesday’s news cycle quoted Press Undersecretary Claire Castro, the irrepressible Malacañang spokesman on almost everything, as saying that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is ready to face impeachment charges should any such charges be filed against him. Malacañang may consider that an appropriate statement, especially if it means an impeachment complaint related to the massive flood control corruption scandal, where some parties have tried to incriminate the president without any concrete evidence. But it strikes me as a dangerous provocation since we do not yet know the issues upon which the complainants would ground their proposed complaint. The issues could include national defense and foreign affairs.
On the issue of corruption, resigned Ako Bicol party-list representative of Albay, and former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co has alleged that Marcos had caused the insertion of P100 billion in the 2025 national budget, from which he was supposed to receive 25 percent in “commission.” Marcos has vehemently denied this allegation, and Co has dropped out of sight while traveling abroad, before he could present any evidence to back up his claim. He is believed to have sought asylum in Portugal, a foreign country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippines.
The government has sought the help of Interpol and the United Nations to locate Co, but this has not produced any positive results. Public Works Secretary Vince Dizon has announced that Co would be tried “in absentia” on various offenses if he does not come home. This was swiftly countermanded by the president, who ordered his subalterns to work on Co’s extradition to the Philippines instead. This means the government will have to conclude an extradition treaty with Portugal, assuming its intelligence report is correct, before Manila could ask Lisbon to turn over Zaldy Co to the Marcos government. This means the process cannot be rushed.
Meanwhile, Rep. Edgar Erice of Caloocan City says some opposition House members are planning to file an impeachment complaint against the president when Congress resumes its plenary session after the Christmas-New Year holidays. This is what has prompted Claire Castro to say the president is prepared to face any impeachment charge filed against him. This was on the assumption that the congressmen would be talking solely about budgetary insertions and “ghost flood control projects,” and nothing else. But what happens if and when the complainants decide to raise other constitutional issues? Would the president be as prepared?
Under the Constitution, the president, the vice president, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of constitutional commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Among the most important provisions of this Constitution, Sec. 25 of Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions), provides: “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 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.”
The provision is crystal clear. It needs no further interpretation. No foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when 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. Not a single word in this provision is capable of being misinterpreted; the entire provision is absolutely clear and complete. But this provision has been completely ignored and violated by the government.
On April 28, 2014, Philippine defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin, on behalf of president Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” Aquino III, signed an “executive agreement” with US ambassador Philip Goldberg granting the US five operational sites within Philippine military bases, in which to pre-position its troops and facilities against China, in naked violation of the express prohibition of the Constitution. This entered into force on June 25, 2014, as the US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). Aquino completed his term in 2016 without being made to answer for his naked constitutional offense. Not even former president Rodrigo Duterte, who declared his “separation” from the US and his “alignment” with China and Russia on his state visit to Beijing, was able to do anything about it. In 2023, Marcos reaffirmed the government’s commitment to EDCA by granting the US four more additional EDCA sites.
A simple textual analysis of Sec. 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution would show that EDCA completely disregards this provision. What happens then if this, rather than corruption or any other issue, were raised as the main ground for impeaching the president?
fstatad@gmail.com
