Things are moving fast! Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has delegated to his spokesperson lawyer Harry Roque the task of debating Retired Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio on the South China Sea debacle. As expected (they are so predictable) the Yellowtards (the bloc within the Philippine Opposition rabidly-loyal to the Aquino-Cojuangco clan) are giving one another mutual high-fives and, you guessed it, trending the quaint Twitter hashtag #DuterteDuwag. Does this change anything? Read my previous article “What to expect from the South China Sea debate between President Duterte and former SC Justice Carpio” and you will notice that the point of the debate is not hinged on who represents the Office of the Philippine President in this debate. Indeed, even before Duterte had responded, Carpio had already done significant damage to the position of Yellowtardom by essentially throwing under the bus his partner-in-crime former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario who is now left to fend for himself on the matter of his role in the loss of Scarborough Shoal to China in 2012.
The Yellowtards evidently miss the whole point and the real significance of this debate. This debate presents a chance to bring to the fore on national television the truth about the lies propagated by Carpio and del Rosario about the Philippines’ so-called “win” in The Hague spun by the previous administration of former President Benigno Simeon “BS” Aquino III. While they focus on the non sequitur of painting Duterte as a coward (again shooting themselves in the foot as this is unlikely to put even the slightest dent on his popularity), Malacanang is very likely busying itself sharpening its weapons as I write this. Contrary to their assertion that Duterte had “run away” from his own challenge, what he had done is delegate the task as a true Chief Executive would. Roque, after all, is a senior cabinet member and no less than the Presidential Spokesperson. As Duterte’s delegate in this debate with Carpio, he will speak for the President.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
Perhaps it is understandable that the Yellowtards are clueless about the notion of delegated responsibility. Indeed, no less than del Rosario who now stands alone as the Aquino administration’s fall guy in the aftermath of the Scarborough Shoal debacle, is a victim of this Yellowtard cluelessness. Del Rosario, in principle, acted as delegate of former President Aquino when he allegedly called the shots in 2012. Trouble is, Aquino is nowhere to be seen today and del Rosario is left holding the proverbial stinky baby. For his part, Carpio’s stated agenda in this debate is to wash himself clean of the Scarborough disaster as well. Poor del Rosario, indeed.
If the Yellowtards are sincere about their focus on the well being of the Filipino people, their focus should be on the insights that are expected to emerge from this debate. Evidently they are more concerned about their be-all-end-all agenda which is to seize power one way or another; illegally by ousting Duterte extra-constitutionally in their trademark “people power revolution”, by holding him to his promise to “resign” if he loses this debate, or legally in the 2022 elections which they have so far exhibited little capability to win.
Whether it is Duterte or Roque who ends up facing off with The Liar Antonio Carpio, the ultimate outcome of this debate will be the truth about what the South China Sea really means to ordinary Filipinos — jack squat. The “win” in The Hague they were made to believe was delivered to them by the Aquino administration is, as Duterte pointed out, not worth the documents it was printed on. The legal arguments Carpio will be bandying around in this debate mean nothing when one considers that China’s position on the matter is not framed by those terms. In short, the bottom line here is that this South China Sea dispute will be settled by military might — something the Philippines does not have thanks to the constant demonisation of its military perpetrated by Carpio’s Yellowtard camp and their communist minions.
Lawyers — specially liars like Antonio Carpio — will not determine the future of the Philippines’ claim to the South China Sea. Warships, missiles, and good soldiers will.
benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.
There is no substitute for a powerful armed forces, to win in any conflict. The international court , does nothing, but render useless decisions.
Winning a war in any conflict, decides all, no more , no less. Carpio is an idiot; Del Rosario is another idiot.
And we can win by relying on our allies! Or when it comes to the very worse, engage in guerilla warfare that has been effective in destroying conventional militaries in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
Roque is a liar. A super spreader of bullshit.
Let Presidental Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo take care of this siutation.
Why don’t we rely on our allies to fill in for the military might that we lack? Also, I find your blatant pessimism in standing for our fishermen in the West Philippine Sea as completely moronic. So if we don’t have an effective military, what do you suggest we do? Give up and surrender to the Chinese? Are you a slave to the Chinese Communist Party?
It is true that whoever develops the best military capabilities will win a war, but one needs not to engage in conventional warfare to win. We have our allies to lean on and if you say that the US is not interested in helping us, then you have little or no grasp of American foreign policy of the current administration. We essentially the same privileges afforded by the members of NATO. All we need is the will to enforce our claims on the West Philippine Sea against the Chinese and should the Chinese retaliate, they will know they will get a response from Washington. Unfortunately, Duterte is quite inconsistent with his statement on this dispute.