The detention of Australian nun Sister Patricia Fox was a massive blunder on the part of the government and served little purpose but to rally anti-Duterte forces. At least, that is how it appears on the surface.
The justification for this was “Operations Order SBM-2015-025” issued by the Bureau of Immigration on July 3, 2015, signed by then Commissioner Siegfred B. Mison and approved by then-Secretary of Justice Leila M. de Lima.
The order reads in part “Section 1. Foreign tourists in the Philippines are enjoined to observe the limitation on the exercise of their political rights during their stay in the Philippines. Foreign tourists are prohibited from engaging in any political activity as defined by law and jurisprudence, such as, but not limited to, joining, supporting, contributing or involving themselves in whatever manner in any rally, assembly or gathering, whether for or against the government.”
The intent to limit the involvement of foreigners in the legal political rights afforded to Philippine citizens is clear: “Whereas, foreign tourists in the Philippines are not entitled to all the rights and privileges granted to the citizens of the Philippines, specifically the exercise of political right which are inherently exclusive to Filipino citizens.”
In response to actions that Sister Fox had taken in the past, Unyon ng mga Manggagawa ng Agrikultura Secretary-General John Milton Lozande Sr. confirmed Fox’s claim, saying the nun was in Davao as a member of an international fact-finding mission. Lozande is quoted as saying, “Sister Pat has also publicly stated that she spoke in front of the striking workers to give them moral and spiritual support.”
Does that “mortal and spiritual support” qualify as “political activity” and “joining, supporting, contributing or involving themselves in whatever manner in any rally, assembly or gathering, whether for or against the government”? That is up to the courts to decide.
However, there are those that are saying the Philippine government has an obligation under international law—specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—to allow foreigners to express their opinions even through public protest.
To assume this covenant—agreed to by the Philippine government—in terms of political rights and freedoms would apply to noncitizens of a nation is far beyond logic. Further, if noncitizens have the same political rights as citizens, then national sovereignty becomes a joke. And if foreigners are to enjoy the same political rights as citizens, then why shouldn’t they also enjoy the same economic rights?
If the concept behind prohibiting foreigners from engaging in Philippine political activity including “protests” as supposedly in the case of Sister Fox, then her supporters would certainly have no problem with Chinese national tourists rallying in support of the government advocating joint exploration of the West Philippine Sea.
Americans would have been welcome to march beside the late President Corazon Aquino on her way to the Senate in support of keeping the US military bases. Perhaps, soon we will see Japanese ultra-nationalists protesting the Philippine comfort woman statue on Roxas Boulevard. After all, according to some, it would be their constitutional and human right.
The legal rights and obligations of citizens and noncitizens must be clearly defined and separated. Perhaps, though, there might be a way to satisfy all sides on this issue and also make a little money.
SBM-2015-025 specifically says “foreign tourists.” Maybe there could be a “Protestors Visa.” For a fee of, say, $5,000, any foreigner can come to the Philippines and protest for or against the government and its policies or anything else Filipino for 30 days.