The fishermen who had asked the Supreme Court to order the government to protect and rehabilitate Panatag Shoal and Panganiban Reef in the West Philippine Sea have withdrawn their names from the petition, saying they were being used for political reasons, the state’s top lawyer said Tuesday.
The announcement from Solicitor General Jose Calida came as the Palace said President Rodrigo Duterte would use his fourth State of the Nation Address to “educate” the public on the constitutionality of his verbal deal in 2016 with Chinese President Xi Jinping to allow the Chinese to fish within the country’s exclusive economic zone.
During the resumption of hearings at the Supreme Court, Calida said all parties have agreed to dismiss the case that would have compelled the government to move against Chinese intrusions in the West Philippine Sea.
He said the fishermen from Palawan and Zambales have submitted sworn statements expressing their intent to withdraw their signatures from the petition.
Monico Abogado, who led the Kalayaan Palawan Farmers and Fisherfolk Association also said they were being used for the political agenda of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
“Nineteen of the affiants said they did not actually sign the petition; they disowned the petition. But, anyway, that is moot and academic now because the parties have agreed that we dismiss the case by Friday,” Calida said when interviewed by reporters.
Calida said the dismissal of the case was agreed to during a closed-door session.
Free Legal Assistance Group headed by Dean Jose Manuel Diokno, counsel for the petitioners, said “after being called to chambers, both parties agreed to explore the filing of a joint motion in the premises and were given until Friday to do so,” effectively confirming the forthcoming dismissal of the case.
SC spokesman Brian Keith Hosaka could not confirm what was agreed upon by the parties and their counsels during the conference said the Court decided to suspend the oral arguments in view of the submissions of the solicitor general and the manifestations of the counsels during the oral arguments.
In his opening statement, Calida moved for the withdrawal of the petition seeking to compel the government to protect disputed shoals in the West Philippine Sea where Chinese fishermen have reportedly been harvesting marine resources.
Calida told the justices that the IBP filed the petition without the express consent and knowledge of the fishermen from Palawan and Zambales, who are named petitioners in the case.
He submitted to the justices affidavits of the 19 fishermen manifesting their withdrawal as petitioners in the case filed by the IBP’s Andre Palacios and losing senatorial candidate Chel Diokno.
Calida also presented a video of the interview with the fishermen where they narrated the circumstances of their involvement in the case.
The group’s leaders, Monico Abogado, and Roberto Asiado said in their respective affidavits that they were “deceived” into signing the petition.
“This is a big deception and manipulation of our association. We attest that we have no knowledge about this petition against agencies of the government,” Abogado said, in his affidavit.
“We don’t know anything about this and we don’t support the petition filed,” Asiado added.
On these grounds, Calida moved for the dismissal of the petition because the counsels for petitioners no longer have legal standing to pursue the case without the petitioners.
Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin and the justices quickly suspended the hearing and called the counsels of both parties to a closed-door conference.
After about 15 minutes, the conference ended and the Court en banc decided unanimously to suspend the oral arguments on the case and give parties time to file a joint motion which insiders said could mean a move for a dismissal of the case.
In a briefing at the Palace, Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo said Duterte will “school” critics and detractors for viewing his independent foreign policy as “unconstitutional” in his fourth SONA.
“He will not defend. He will educate people who think what he did was unconstitutional. He will lecture [them] on the constitutionality of what he has done,” Panelo said in a Palace press briefing.
Panelo said Duterte felt the need to lecture others for their “outdated” knowledge of the country’s laws.
“He feels that others do not read [enough] and what they know is already passe,” he added.
On Monday night, Duterte maintained that his verbal agreement with the top Chinese leader was “in keeping with the law.”
“To those who said it’s unconstitutional, well, you wait. Maybe in the SONA, I will educate [them] that what I did was, telling them that they can fish, [right]. I’m really right and that’s not unconstitutional,” he said.
“By any stretch of the imagination, what I did was not unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, it was in keeping with the law,” he added.
Following the Recto Bank incident where 22 Filipinos were left in distress at sea after being “sideswiped” by a Chinese vessel, the Chief Executive said he had entered into a “mutual agreement” with Xi in 2016.
READ: Rody weighs in on ‘accident’
Duterte said Chinese vessels are allowed to fish in the country’s EEZ, saying he allowed the “give-and-take” of fish in the disputed waters.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said Duterte could be impeached for his failure to secure Philippine-owned territories. Detained Senator Leila de Lima also viewed the President’s remarks as “simply repugnant” and “clear grounds for impeachment.”
Maritime law expert professor Jay Batongbacal said the mere presence of foreign vessels in one’s EEZ is already a crime. Therefore, Duterte allowed such illegal activities in contravention of the country’s laws.
Moves by the Duterte administration to bolster the President’s stand come on the third anniversary on July 12 of the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to uphold Manila’s sovereign rights to its 200-nautical-mile EEZ, and rejecting Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea as “excessive.”
China has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court or its decision.
Critics have questioned the administration’s decision to set aside the decision in favor of seeking improved relations with China.
READ: PH-China joint probe avoids poaching issue
READ: Joint probe gets Rody's go-ahead
