Misplaced loyalty

Last year, President Aquino signed Republic Act no. 10668, amending the 50-year-old Cabotage Law by allowing foreign vessels to transport and co-load foreign cargoes for domestic transshipment.

It says among others that foreign vessel arriving from a foreign port shall be allowed to carry foreign cargo to its Philippine port of final destination and to carry foreign cargo by another foreign vessel calling at the same port of entry to the domestic port of final destination of such foreign cargo.

The old cabotage law contained in the Tariff and Customs Code only allows vessels with Philippine registry to serve domestic routes or engage in the transport of cargoes from one Philippine port to another.

But for some reason, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), in particular its OIC Raul Santos, has a different opinion from the rest of our government, saying that RA 10668 cannot be applied to the Manila North Harbor, one of three major domestic Manila ports due to a 2009 contract limiting its cargo handling operations to domestic cargo only.

Right now, only Enrique Razon’s International Container Terminal Services Inc. (ICTSI) and Yosi Tangco’s Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI) are allowed to accept foreign cargo destined for Manila.

The law’s implementing rules basically converted the Manila North Harbor, along with other Philippine ports, into international ports.

OIC Santos not only issued a memo to Customs Commissioner Bert Lina warning that allowing foreign vessels to Manila North Harbor violates its previous contract to operate as just a domestic cargo terminal. He also ordered all port authorities to prevent foreign vessels from entering Manila North Harbor.

While the Constitution itself provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed” and while RA 10668 itself states that the acts that it allows “shall not diminish or impair any existing and valid government contract covering the handling of import and export cargo,” jurisprudence has already established that public welfare is superior to private contracts and that franchises and licenses are always subject to the condition that they can be amendment or repealed at any time if public good so requires.

Noted constitutionalist Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago once cited a 1993 Supreme Court ruling which stated that the non-impairment of contract clause is limited by the State’s right to make laws that are necessary to preserve public security, order, health, morality, justice and general welfare.

The benefits of opening up Manila North Harbor to foreign ships and cargoes is beyond debate.

And then assuming for the sake or argument that PPA is correct, then we can always amend PPA’s contract with North Harbor and convert it into an international port.

What I don’t understand at this point is the fact that since the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect private citizens from government abuses, then it should be the private party whose contract with government is affected by the new law that should complain. In this case, it is PPA which is a government agency that is complaining and acting like it is lawyering or brokering for some private interests.

Since this is a contract between two parties and the supposed “aggrieved” party (Manila North Harbor) isn’t actually aggrieved, then why the hell is PPA complaining? Whose interest is PPA protecting?

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]