Manila declaration of 1982

Yesterday’s press headlined the International Court’s (ITLOS) request that China defend itself on the case filed by the Philippines.  They have been given until Dec. 15 to respond.  Failing to respond does not preclude the court from proceeding. I have been asked many times to explain why the government has decided to file a case in an international court.

In Nov. 15, 1982 the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed the principle of the Charter of the United Nations that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.  In this context, the Manila Declaration was adopted in the General Assembly by consensus including the support of both the Philippines and China.  

It was considered the first important instrument of the work of the Special Committee on the Charter of the UN and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, and one of its significant achievements. General Carlos P. Romulo was very involved and outspoken about the need to strengthen the UN Charter. As an original signatory to the UN Charter in 1945, he realized that after more than three decades, the charter must be reviewed and amended. His strong advocacy of the Manila Declaration was a manifestation of his desire to strengthen the United Nations.   

The Declaration contains a preamble and two operative parts. Part I encompasses the applicable principles and rules of peaceful settlement of international disputes as such. Part II is devoted to the ways and means provided for by the Charter and by general international law with emphasis on the role of the competent organs of the United Nations to this effect.  It refers to the International Court of Justice and other existing organizations for the resolution of disputes.  Under the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), the International Tribunal of the Law of the Seas (ITLOS) was created. 

 On November 2012, Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Manila Declaration made the following remarks:

“The Philippine Government commemorates the 30th Anniversary of this landmark document which remains as relevant today as it did three decades ago. To quote General Romulo “The Manila Declaration is a beginning, not arrival at the destination.” Clearly given everything that is going on in the world today, we have not yet arrived at the destination envisioned by the Manila Declaration. …... The Declaration enshrines the Philippines’ commitment to its obligation to settle its disputes by peaceful means and through the rule of law.

 â€œThe Manila Declaration reaffirms the peremptory character of the peaceful settlement of disputes vis-à-vis the prohibition against the use of force, in order to maintain international peace and security. It inspires us to find new ways to forge international cooperation and agreement to ensure that peremptory norms apply to all States, and thus encourages the progressive development of international law that RIGHT IS MIGHT when it comes to the conduct of international relations.”

Last March 30, the Philippines submitted their case to ITLOS in accordance with the spirit of the Manila Declaration.

International Support

In the recent Shangri-La Security Summit, the United States Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that while the United States did not take sides on rival claims, “we firmly oppose any nation’s use of intimidation, coercion or the threat of force to assert these claims.”…..“The United States will not look the other way when fundamental principles of the international order are being challenged,” he warned.  Japanese Prime Minister Abe and Australian Defense Minister Douglas Johnston echoed the sentiments of Mr Hagel citing non-compliance with the basic tenets of international law. In yesterday’s Philippine Star it was reported: “Britain and Canada are supporting the decision of the Philippines to seek international arbitration over maritime disputes in the South China Sea.”  The statements of the countries just mentioned clearly indicate the relevance of the Manila Declaration today.

Recently, Vietnam accused China of drilling on the continental shelf of Vietnam. The situation escalated dramatically when Chinese vessels turned high powered water cannons on Vietnamese ships eventually ramming several vessels. During the World Economic Forum in Manila, the Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung of Vietnam in a written reply to questions sent by The Associated Press, said “like all countries, Vietnam is considering various defense options, including legal actions in accordance with the international law.”  The tensions between China and Vietnam should not be allowed to escalate into armed conflict. China’s circumstances may have changed since their support in 1982 but the underlying principles in the Manila Declaration still apply.

Sharia Law in Muslim Mindanao

The Mindanao Peace Accord provides a legal framework where the Bangsamoro regional government is granted competence over the Sharia justice system.  While the legal framework also provides that Sharia Law shall apply only to Muslims, there could be problems arising out of legal and practical applications and interpretations of Sharia Law.

My friend, Atty. Rafael Evangelista cites instances where Sharia Law is enforced not only against Muslims but people of all faiths.  For example, Muslims who convert to other faiths could be subject to the death penalty.  If a Christian and a Muslim are caught in an adulterous situation, will the penalties under Sharia Law be made to apply only to the Muslim and not to the Christian?

There are also many horrendous examples abroad of how extremist Muslim elements have kidnapped, raped and killed people using Sharia Law as the excuse. I need not dwell on these atrocities.  But clearly many in the Philippines have expressed concern that it might happen here.

My personal knowledge of our Muslim brothers in the South indicates that they have always been very conservative and extremism has never been part of their vocabulary. Nevertheless, a reminder to Congress is appropriate, as it develops the Basic Law, that extremist provisions under the guise of Sharia Law must be excluded.  Lastly, Sharia Law must at all times be subject and subordinated to the Philippine Constitution, laws of general application, and international treaties and conventions that the Philippines is a signatory.