"What's wrong with this one?"
"What's wrong with this one?"
A memorandum of understanding is a formal agreement between two or more parties. Companies and organizations can use MOUs to establish official partnerships.
MOUs are not legally binding but they carry a degree of seriousness and mutual respect, stronger than a gentlemen’s agreement. Often, MOUs are the first steps towards a legal contract. In US law, a memorandum of understanding is synonymous with a letter of intent which is a non-binding written agreement that implies a binding contract is to follow.
I had to refer to a legal dictionary to get the above definition of a memorandum of understanding just to ensure that I do not err on the side of ignorance in tackling what has become the most abused word this part of the globe during the two-day state visit of Chinese President Xi Jiping. Yes, MOU and MOUs were in vogue, on occasion disparagingly, by a lot of folks many of whom should have known better than even utter it. Such was the contrived toxicity which anti-Chinese critics of the Duterte administration brought to the forefront in a mean effort to deflate the value of this visit.
To no avail. The visit went well without any untoward incident and the initiatives agreed to by the parties on a number of fronts may be considered breakthroughs following the cooling of our relations with the world’s second-biggest economy and regional powerhouse during the past administration.
Indeed, the contrivance was so disgustingly hollow it only showcased the narrow-mindedness of those who have it a habit of opposing President Duterte no matter what. Which does not, of course, speak well of the standing of these people as leaders of note. For how can one be so tricky and unforgiving to the point of being unpatriotic shoving off the country’s interest in order to put Duterte and our relations with China in a bad light. What should have been a major coup of sorts for the country as we navigate the tricky waters of international diplomacy with what was billed as a major, even historical, visit by the most powerful Chinese leader in recent memory was dragged to the gutters on the issue of MOUs.
Using “transparency” as defined by them as their cover, Vice President Leni Robredo and some senators went to town demanding that all the MOUs and other agreements signed during the Xi visit be reviewed, insinuating in the process that China is a duplicitous partner and will only take advantage of us. Or, worse, that President Duterte cannot be trusted to stand his ground and work for the country’s best interests. And all because they “need” to check whether the two- or three-page MOUs will redound to our best interests. Come on, how can a two- or three-pager compromise our interests?
Take the case of the MOU on the “Joint Maritime Oil and Gas Exploration between China and the Philippines” which some senators have already judged as disadvantageous to the country. These guys even went to the extent of suggesting that the same will compromise our national security. How, we don’t know and they did not elaborate. Only that they think or maybe even believe that the same will not redound to our best interest.
Well, here’s the catch. These guys were waving a so-called Chinese draft which, if the reports are correct, was titled “Framework Agreement on Joint Maritime Oil and Gas Exploration between China and the Philippines.” Nothing definite, just like a letter of intent as advised by the administration. In fact, DFA Secretary TeddyBoy Locsin even ignored this so-called Chinese draft saying if there is going to be any draft MOU on the subject it will have to be written by us not the Chinese. So, he advanced the information that, indeed, he wrote the final draft on a piece of cloth which was what was signed by the parties. Not the earlier one prepared by the Chinese which was the basis for the senators’ outburst.
It was Philippine ambassador to China Chito Sta. Romana who confirmed that indeed what “was signed was essentially the Philippine counter-draft with some new revisions and is significantly different from what Senator Trillanes released,” the same draft which Secretary Locsin said he did himself on a cloth. So Trillanes and the senators including Robredo have no place to go except take cover for their harsh and premature exertions. And Ambassador Sta. Romana is right—the draft was a “prelude to a more specific agreement for exploring and finding out if there really is oil and gas that can be exploited in the future.” He advisedly noted that “an effort has been made to come to an agreement and to be able to present it to the public and to be able to face the test of judicial scrutiny and constitutionality,”
And I might add this, on whether the possibility of a joint undertaking would be legal and constitutional. At this point, no one can even suggest any kind of malice, stupidity or duplicity on the part of the signatories to this MOU. So, what are these guys raising hell over?
Even professor Jay Batongbacal, who heads the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and who is one of the loudest critics of the Duterte administration’s conciliatory gestures to the Chinese noted that the document “doesn’t amount to a contract” and is “more like a record of what they talked about and agreed on in principle.” He had early advised that both sides would “sign some kind of general statement/s or ‘framework’… with legal and implementation details left out for later.” Which is what happened in the case of this MOU on oil and gas exploration.
There is no question that apart from the loan and commercial agreements as well as consultancy and grants agreements, all MOUs remain as such—an agreement in principle a little more than a gentlemen’s agreement to be fleshed out at some future date.
What’s wrong with that?
