Calls to have Chinese diplomats in Manila expelled immediately have snowballed, with the Philippine Coast Guard and Senator Francis Tolentino pushing for punitive action if embassy officials are proven guilty of wiretapping.
The Senate Committee on National Defense will likewise investigate “by next week” the alleged wiretapping on officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines military officials.
Tolentino, who got confirmation of the Senate probe from panel chairperson Senator Jinggoy Estrada, said Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Huang Xilian should be expelled and declared “persona non grata” if the allegation is proven.
“This desperate tactic employed should be stopped as they proliferate false information against our officials, thereby affecting our national security,” he said.
PCG spokesperson for West Philippine Sea (WPS) Commodore Jay Tarriela also backed the position of Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. and National Security Adviser Secretary Eduardo Año for the expulsion of Chinese diplomats involved in the illegal recording.
“If it is proven that there is a diplomat in the Chinese embassy who violated the anti-wiretapping law and did not respect our law as the Republic of the Philippines, then they should be expelled,” Tarriela said.
China’s foreign ministry earlier cautioned Manila to “stop provocations and infringements.”
“The Philippines’ response shows exactly their guilty conscience in the face of facts and evidence and how exasperated and desperate they have become,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian said during a press conference on May 10.
“We ask the Philippines to ensure that Chinese diplomats can carry out their duty normally, and to stop provocations and infringements,” he added.
But Tolentino said as an alternative, the Philippines should also consider recalling the country’s ambassador to China.
In filing Senate Resolution 1023, Tolentino noted that wiretapping is a very important and sensitive matter, and that the government should take appropriate actions to determine the extent of China’s interference in some of the country’s critical infrastructure that may undermine national security.
Last week, China threatened to release the transcript and audio recording of an alleged phone conversation that occurred last January 3 between Chinese officials and Vice Admiral Alberto Carlos, then chief of the AFP WesCom, where the latter allegedly agreed to a “new model” in handling resupply missions to the BRP Sierra Madre in Ayungin Shoal.
On the same day, the Department of Foreign Affairs issued a statement emphasizing that only the President can approve or authorize agreements entered into by the Philippine government on matters pertaining to the West Philippine Sea.
At the House, two lawmakers expressed support to the DFA’s decision to investigate the wiretapping allegations
Representatives Rodge Gutierrez (1-RIDER party-list) and Jonathan Keith Flores (Bukidnon) noted that China must be getting desperate.
“What kind of a foreign state would try to intervene in our local politics by introducing fake or manipulated information?” Gutierrez said.
“It’s really just China being China, and they are bullying us. They are not following our laws, our rules. So, to me, they are just being themselves, being bullies as they are,” Flores added.
The Department of Justice on Tuesday directed the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate the Chinese Embassy in Manila on alleged violations of the country’s Anti-Wiretapping Act.
“Diplomatic immunity should never be used as a license to exploit our country’s peace and harmony for selfish motives. This privilege does not shield anyone from the consequences of the Rule of Law,” Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla said.
He reminded diplomats who enjoy privileges and immunities that it is their “duty to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state.”
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the DOJ said “diplomats, employees of international organizations, and their immediate family members are covered by a certain degree of diplomatic immunity during their stay in a receiving State.”
“However, diplomatic immunity is only with respect to official acts performed in the exercise of official duties and functions necessary for advocating international comity, policies and interests,” Remulla said.
