Identity

We have established the institutional rudiments of a regional community, including the basic agreements for building a regional economy. What lags behind is a clear sense of regional identity.

Last weekend, the Philippines formally launched its chairmanship of ASEAN 2017. We will be hosting dozens of official meetings through the length of the year across about 12 sites in the archipelago. These meetings will thresh out the details of broad agreements signed over the years with the goal of consolidating a functional regional economy.

Quite fortuitously, the Philippines hosts ASEAN on the grouping’s 50th anniversary. That should allow us to play a major role in refining the vision that holds this association together.

Clearly, the ASEAN project was inspired by what was then the European Economic Community (EEC) that has since evolved into the European Union (EU) whose main feature is a common currency. Its main pitfall, as Brexit demonstrated, is in reconciling the idea of national independence and the need for a common structure of governance, particularly on fiscal policies.

We have long, and still muddled, experience of the EU to guide us in our own efforts. For instance, we now know that adopting a common currency without first unifying our fiscal policies is a dangerous thing.

The Europeans have one advantage over us. They were able to quickly build a sense of community drawing from common roots in the Greco-Roman tradition. They may have a Babel of languages, but that does overcome a common cultural heritage from centuries of the Holy Roman Empire and the use of Latin as the lingua franca.

By contrast, the nations of Southeast Asia draw from disparate colonial experiences. The major religions of the world – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism – all intersect in this region. The world’s major powers seek to influence the evolution of our regional community.

When the founding fathers of the ASEAN decided to embark on a common journey, it was almost a leap of faith. Indochina was torn by war. Race riots were still plaguing Singapore. The Philippines and Malaysia nearly came to war. Indonesia was rocked by a military coup and there were fears the sprawling archipelago could break up.

It took us 50 years to get to where we are: a regional community with no real structure of governance but with an ambitious program of achieving the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). This program requires harmonization of market standards and professional accreditation in order to promote more comprehensive intra-regional economic exchange.

We are hoping economic integration will somehow overpower cultural and political disparities. Perhaps it will.

Messier

The complex legal battle between businessman Reghis Romero II and his son Michael seems to get messier by the day. That continuing battle could spill over into the operations of an important facility in the already congested Manila port.

Father and son are fighting over who actually owns Harbor Centre Port Terminal Inc. (HCPTI). The company once controlled Manila North Harbor Port, Inc. (MNHPI). San Miguel Corporation, over time, accumulated shares in (MNHPI) and now owns a controlling 78.33 percent of shares in the company. Most of those shares were sold by HCPTI, whose ownership is being contested by father and son Romero.

Reghis Romero scored a legal victory over his son when QC Trial Court Branch 222 presiding judge Edgar Santos recently ordered Michael Romero and those representing him to desist from acting in behalf of HCPTI as shareholder or member of the board of directors of MNHPI. The elder Romero sued his estranged son for allegedly falsifying documents to claim ownership of HCPTI.

The family-owned HCPTI at one point owned 65 percent of MNHPI. On the basis of his supposed ownership of the company, Michael Romero sold shares of MNHPI. The court order for Michael to stop selling shares seems to have come too late. The bulk of the shares have already been sold.

The case now seems to be over who owns the proceeds from those sales. San Miguel is buyer of good faith in this case, having purchased its controlling block on the basis of Michael’s representation as owner of the HCPTI stocks. The court now recognizes that R-II Builders Inc. and R-II Holdings Inc. have “clear rights to be protected.” Both companies, plaintiffs in this case, are owned by Reghis.

The court likewise stated that it is inclined to believe the 2011 deeds of assignment, used by Michael to represent himself as majority owner of Harbor Terminal, were forged. Should the court eventually resolve this case to the favor of the plaintiffs, San Miguel could be drawn into an even messier legal situation.

In a related development, Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila ordered the arrest of Michael Romero for qualified theft, a non-bailable offense. The arrest order was issued despite a DOJ resolution issued last Sept. 5 which reversed and set aside the July 1, 2016 resolution of City Prosecutor of Manila that recommended filing of the case against the party-list congressman. The case involves several checks issued by Michael on behalf of HCPTI.

The Manila court judge, citing judicial precedent, argued that since his court has taken jurisdiction over the case, the resolution of the DOJ has no bearing on the proceedings. Issuing a warrant of arrest happens procedurally once a court takes jurisdiction over a case.

Although this second case involves actions taken by the younger Romero as he exercised ownership over the company he claims separate from the main case involving determination of ownership, this could land Congressman Michael Romero in jail.