AMID a public call by Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana for a review of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States, two senators with security backgrounds in the military and police supported an audit, but are ruling out abrogation of the treaty.
Sen. Gregorio Honasan said he supports President Duterte’s order, as conveyed by Lorenzana to Washington, to review the treaty. At the same time, he said, the situation warranted an “audit not only of the MDT but of all security, economic bilateral and multilateral arrangements long overdue in the light of the changing security, political, economic, social domestic and global landscape.”
A “congressional review intervention is important without prejudice to more expedient legally authorized Executive action,” added Honasan, who chairs the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security.
The vice chairman of the Senate Defense panel also weighed in with his support for the audit, but definitely ruled out any notion of abrogation.
Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson Sr. said, “I agree that a review of the MDT is in order if only to adapt to the changing times and the apparent foreign policy shift under the Duterte administration.”
Lacson likewise noted that, “with the ratification of the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement [Edca] the MDT has been effectively amended.” Nonetheless, he added, “a thorough study of the Articles must be undertaken by the Executive branch before the same is sent to the Senate for ratification.”
Referring to the Constitution’s mandate for the Senate as the treaty-ratifying body, Lacson continued, “We may have to exercise our role as senators when the new treaty is up for debates and deliberation.”
On whether the review should be meant to improve or abrogate the treaty between the two
longtime defense allies, Lacson said the objective should be, “To improve or enhance and adjust to the existing conditions affecting our country’s national interest. Definitely, not abrogate.”
Lacson, though, conceded the lack of material time for the review. “Given the very limited time left before the election period and considering the priority given to the budget bill, realistically, there is not much that we can accomplish except the bills already scheduled for bicameral conference and those up for plenary amendments.”
Image credits: AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta