Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

The DFA's statement in early March more or less implied that there was such a proposal and it was contrary to our national interest as they put it explicitly.

So DFA is washing off its hands.

So it looks like no official organ was involved but some people may have been involved regardless of what Salvador Panelon or some extremely credible people are saying out there.

Yeah, you're right. The DFA disclosed that there were proposals by China but the DFA rejected it because it would violate the Constitution.

It would be against the arbitral award.

But maybe what Senator Rizon Tavares is doing is the right thing because under existing law, treason can be committed only during wartime.

And this is really...

If Duterte did...

If Duterte did it during wartime, this is treason.

He can be executed for treason if we have a penalty for execution for treason.

But I think what Riza should do is to conduct the investigation in aid of legislation so that we will have legislation in place during peacetime.

Because during wartime, if a person...

commits a treasonous act, that's governed by the revised penal code.

But there is no equivalent law during peacetime.

The nearest law is when you are disloyal to the republic.

That's considered a violation of the code of conduct of government officials.

But the penalty there is dismissal from office.

So it's not the...

I think the penalty is to...

to...

to light.

And of course, if you are in office, you can be impeached if it's a culpable violation of the constitution and you are an impeachable officer.

But the president controls Congress so nobody would file exactly what happened during time of Duterte.

So we should have a law saying that if you commit a treasonous act, the same treasonous act during peacetime, then you will be subject to a penalty also.

But the president controls Congress so nobody would file exactly what happened during peacetime.

Which will be probably lighter during peacetime if it is competitive than in wartime.

But the...

I think there is a gap in the law because if it is a crime during peacetime, during wartime, it should also be a crime during peacetime because it injures the national interest.

So that should be the...

That should be the direction of the inquiry that's in aid of legislation because you are thinking of new legislation that will apply during...

During peacetime, because there's a gap, a hiatus in the law.

Yeah, thank you Justice for pointing that out.

I mean, why do you think we have such a gap?

I mean, isn't it like commonsensical that, you know,

treasonous acts could happen in a non-war situation,

but in still very, very fragile situations that could lead to war?

I mean, the United States had all sorts of different legislations during the Cold War period,

whereby you're not talking about direct war with the Soviet Union,

but, you know, potentially disastrous, you know,

actions by American officials that could completely undermine their national security.

I mean, obviously, if you watch the movie Oppenheimer,

you would have criticism because it was used to, you know, to red tag essentially.

But nevertheless, in democracy today, in mature democracy today,

do we have any kind of a legal blueprint that we can draw on?

Yes, the U.S., U.K.

and other democracies in EU,

they all have laws even during peacetime because they had this during the Cold War,

a lot of their government officials and citizens were recruited by the KGB.

And so they developed that.

They had to promulgate laws to counter the communist recruitment, the KGB recruitment.

But we did not have that kind of experience.

We just copied our present revised penal code.

It's copied almost verbatim from the revised penal code of Spain.

And it's very old law.

And that's it.

In the case of treason, it applied only during wartime.

So we have to update.

That's why I'm hoping that this legislative inquiry of Santa Riza will move in that direction,

that there is really a gap.

There's a black hole in our legal system.

And we should, because it's not only Duterte.

You have a lot of Filipinos now who are mouthing Chinese propaganda because they're paid by China.

We have a law already.

We copied it.

It was published.

It was enacted during the time of Marcos, during martial law.

It's like all those who are lobbyists for a foreign country must register.

But that's only for purposes of registration.

So you will disclose your transparency.

But we really need something because we may have some military officers who will be recruited by China during peacetime.

That's the problem.

Or civilian.

If you are a military officer, you will be governed by the military rules.

You can be subjected to court martial.

But for civilians, there is that very weak provision in the code of conduct for government employees.

Yes, it's a violation.

But this penalty is just dismissal from government office.

Justice, I mean, doesn't that kind of reflect some fundamental issues?

Weaknesses and sense of complacency sa Pilipinas.

I mean, in different episodes with you and other people are in the know, pagdating sa West Philippine Sea,

we discuss a lot about national defense, AFP, external security.

But I find it's quite surprising that, you know, we also have all of these serious gaps domestically also in terms of our legislation.

I mean, medyo masipag naman ang mga abugado natin.

It's not like we're a country shy of making legislations.

I don't want to be too speculative.

But I'm half-shy.

I'm shocked at the fact that all of these decades, you know, we did not try to take care of some of these basic things.

Is it because we were too reliant on the United States throughout the Cold War period and we are still trying to find our own footing?

I mean, what's going on there?

Well, yes, I think we have that gap in the law.

And we have been very cavalier.

In fact, you remember President Duterte.

He allowed.

He allowed Dito, which is practically financed by Chinatel, a Chinese state-owned company, to install their towers in all our military camps.

Can you just imagine that?

Chinese receivers, transceivers will be installed in our military camps.

So they will all collect all the communications of our military.

And, you know, to the credit of our military, they refuse to implement.

They could not, of course, say no directly to the commander-in-chief, President Duterte.

But they just delayed and now they're not implementing it because they know.

But, of course, I wrote about it.

And, of course, like General Esperon, who was head of the NSA at the time, they all defended Duterte.

But the people on the ground knew the injury that could be caused.

So they just refused to implement it.

While their superiors paid lip service to it.

But all of them really didn't want to implement it.

And luckily, not a single tower was installed.

But I think we need really a whole-of-nation approach on national security.

That we should be conscious.

Right now.

Right now, we allowed in the draft of the amended Public Service Act that Duterte proposed to Congress.

He wanted our telecom company can be 100% owned by China, by foreigners.

And he said, I will give the third telco to China, Chinatel.

Can you just imagine that?

And so what happened here was.

We all worked to stop it.

To create poison pills.

What happened was the intelligence service of the armed forces proposed to Congress to put their subject to national security.

The president can decide not to implement this law allowing foreigners to own 100% of our telecom if it infringes our national security.

So that's one layer.

And the.

Other the other the telcos globe and PLDT suggested to Congress that yes foreigners can 100% but not state-owned enterprises because the Chinese telecom companies are state-owned so they were able to insert that and I myself because I was swore it I worked that I suggested to some congressmen that to put their subject to reciprocity.

Because.

If we.

If we allow China to own 100% of our telecom company, Chinese should also allow us.

But in China, foreigners cannot own a majority of our telecom company because they know telecom company is essential to national security.

You cannot allow foreigners to own your telecom company.

Especially under Chinese law.

All Chinese citizens and companies, wherever they are in the world, are obliged to turn over.

To China, to the Chinese security agencies, any data that they that is in their possession.

So if they establish a telecom tower in Camp Aguinaldo.

And they get all those communications of our general headquarters.

The Chinese who operate the Dito will will be forced to turn over the.

The data to Chinese security agencies.

So there are three layers now that prevent the China tell from gaining majority control of Dito because first, if you're a state-owned company, you cannot own majority of Philippine telecom companies.

Second, the president.

For reasons of national security can prohibit and third, it must be subject to reciprocity and China will never open up their telecom industry to foreign ownership, foreign control, because for them, they cannot.

The essence of the Communist Party, their total control is control of communications.

They cannot allow people to talk freely.

That's why they even have a firewall for the Internet.

They they they have complete surveillance and the they intrude into your privacy.

That's the way to control society and there are communist regime.

So for them, the telecom in comp telecom companies are very important, critical for control for controlling society, and they will never allow foreigners to to control or manage their telecom industries.

So they will that they cannot control.

They cannot comply with that condition subject to reciprocity.

I mean, I would say justice that even some of their supposed private companies, they're being private is questionable, right?

I mean, considering how in China, the government just can come in and take over the company or has essentially, you know, versions of commissars in the Board of Governors.

I mean, there's so many levers that the Chinese government uses and can use to essentially force Chinese companies, even privately owned companies.

I mean, there's so many levers that the Chinese government uses and can use to essentially force Chinese companies, even privately owned companies.

to toe the line, right?

I'll try to put a Fail on there.

I mean, I think Huawei, last time we checked as a private company, but I think no one in any mature democracy would assume that Huawei is not being influenced by the Chinese government one way or another considering how much subsidies and how much direct legal

and political control or the Chinese Communist Party has over practically everything in China, right?

and political control or the Chinese Communist Party has over practically everything in China, right?

So in that case, doesn't this mean that we have to be careful with any kind of deal with any major Chinese company?

far as our critical infrastructure is concerned

which also raises the issue of national grid

right? Because it's not only

the ownership right? It's also the maintenance

the engineering. I mean I think

again a number of senators including

Senator Ontiveros back

in the day, Miriam Defensor and more

recently also Rafi Tulfo have raised issues

about you know essentially Chinese engineers

running the show in some of this

I mean in the

grid sector for

instance. I mean so should we

do something more drastic here

essentially renationalize some of

the sectors or come up with very

explicit national security papers

with respect to China?

Well on the

national grid I think we have to renationalize

it. We cannot, you know

the Chinese are the one running the

grid. They're technicians.

There was a time when they removed

all the Filipino technicians

and the ESAP complained

the intelligence service of the

armed forces field complained. So

I don't know if they were brought

back but control

over the

technical matters under the

national grid is in the hands of the Chinese

and they deny that

it can be shut down from China

but I believe it can be shut

down by China because these are all

done electronically

and through

the internet.

We can open our

if you have a house

abroad you can open it from here

through

the internet. You can start your car

in New York from here

through the internet. So you can

shut down the grid

from Beijing.

It's as simple as

that now. So we have to be very

careful about this because

China wants to grab

our maritime zones and

island territories in the West Philippine Sea

and

we have to be

conscious of that.

How can we

fight China if they can shut down

our national grid?

That's why the Americans in their

sites, they put up their own

generator. They will not rely

on the national grid.

That's how critical it is.

Even our

all our camps should have

their own generator because

in case of a conflict in the West Philippine

Sea, China will just switch

off the national grid and all

our camps will go dark.

So again, last time

we checked, this is from the

Arroyo to Aquino era, right?

The Chinese

involved. Yes, that happened. The privatization

happened during the Arroyo

administration.

But national grid is like printing

money because

everybody has to pass

through the national grid, all the power.

If you put up a plant in Quezon,

Pabilaw, it has to pass

through the national grid because the power is delivered

in Metro Manila. So it's like

a tollway.

The transport will not move unless

you pass through the tollway and

there will be no electricity in

Manila without that

national grid.

So it's really, and

it will always be profitable.

There is no way a

national grid can lose money because

you just add on to the

you just charge

and everybody needs it.

I don't know why it was privatized

when it's

so critical for national

security and there's no

way. It was not losing money.

It should not lose money by definition.

If it was losing money,

then there's a lot of corruption there.

I mean,

just as I don't want to be self-deprecating

too much, but parang

ito is parang medyo banana republic

tayo. I mean, there's so many safeguards,

basic safeguards you would assume

in any serious democracy or

nation states that it looks like

they're really missing in the case of the Philippines.

And honestly, I mean, Duterte being

a lawyer himself, not necessarily the

best lawyer, but being the lawyer himself, perhaps

was aware of a lot of these gaps

in the system that he exploited

on many fronts, particularly

also due to the West Philippine Sea issue. Is that

also your understanding? Yes.

He knew what he was doing, but he did

it. That means it was intentional.

When he said, do not patrol

the EEZ, just

patrol up to our territorial sea.

He knew the consequences. That means

China will grab our EEZ.

Nobody will oppose China, but he

did it willingly because

he wanted to do it as a

favor for China. It was against their

national interest. That's

why I said in wartime, that would be

treason. But in

peacetime, that's

a culpable violation of the Constitution.

He's an impeachable officer,

but you need Congress to impeach him, and

everyone in Congress will not do

it. Why? Because

you know why

all the congressmen are under the thumb

of the president? Because of the pork

barrel. The Supreme

Court, before

Congress, when they

passed the general appropriations

act, there would be a line there

that the congressmen can

recommend where the

public works will be

placed in their district.

But the Supreme Court ruled

that is unconstitutional because

Congress can only

legislate. It cannot implement.

That is an executive

function.

So now,

but the congressmen

still want their pork barrel. So they put

the entire amount of the pork barrel

in the Department of Public Works.

And it's given

entirely up to the president

to distribute it. So

you have to now kowtow to the

president to get your

pork barrel.

Because you cannot

recommend anymore. And so

the president, Duterte said, okay, I will

give you your pork barrel, but I'll put

here for later release. Remember

that for later release. When

will it be released? After you have

passed the bill allowing

foreigners to own telco.

Because I want

the Chinatel to be the third telco.

I will also release

it if you cancel the ABS-CBN

franchise. So it was used

in the hands of a president.

With that mentality,

you can see what

will happen.

Not to mention the narco-politician

list. I mean, he could

also put you on the list of narco-politicians,

which is even worse, right?

So

the presidency

is something that's really

you just have to put a decent man

there. Somebody who's

after the national interest.

In the hands of a president like

Mark Vidal

Ramos or

Ninoy Pinoy Aquino,

then you can, you know, these are decent people.

They will not do something like that.

But the ends, well, in the hands of a

Marcos Senor or in the hands of

Duterte, it's terrible because

they don't care. They will just, if

they want to give

up our

they want

China to come in and

control our telecom, they will

do it through this pork barrel

because they control

Congress through the pork barrel.

And if they

want to punish

ABS-CBN or any other

broadcast company, they can do

it. They will tell the

congressmen, do not renew

the franchise. Otherwise, you will not

get your budget. So everybody

lined up to vote against

the renewal of the franchise of ABS-CBN.

That was the tool that was used.

Yeah, so that's where we see, I think,

presidential bandwagon system na

sinasabi, no? And it's so easy to bandwagon

around the president or the president

has many whips, right?

To leverage in order to

essentially neutralize

checks and balance. I mean, obviously, we saw

that also most dramatically dun sa

issue ng EJK at saka drug

warning bigong. So, unfortunately,

nagsabay-sabay lahat ang mga buso na yan.

But Justice, before going back again to

this issue ng Ayung and Sol

and the implications of the so-called gentleman's

agreement, I want to also ask,

aren't we concerned that if

ever we pass laws on treason

or we update

our existing legal

frameworks, that will also open up

to serious politicization,

right? That every administration will come in

and open up treason cases against the previous

one. I mean, you can

imagine that would have been the case against,

I don't know, Aquino administration back in

the day or intervention by

Senator Trillianis on the Scar Barshal issue,

among others. I see already in comment section, some

of the pro-duterte people here saying,

oh, what about this? What about that?

I mean, how do we also safeguard

against that possibility of very

immature politicians weaponizing this?

It will be subject to abuse

by a president like Duterte.

Like Duterte, what he did was he

canceled the amnesty of Trillianis.

And today, there's an

announcement in the newspaper that the

Supreme Court voided,

declared it unconstitutional.

So, there it is. You know, it's very

important that we elect a decent

president.

Because

we have

given so much power to the

office of the president because

those powers are needed.

But in the hands of

a

president who has no morals,

who doesn't have the

interest of the nation

in his heart,

then we didn't see these

things happen. Giving

away our exclusive economic zone.

For me, that's really

that's the height

of a

you know,

disregard for the national interest.

I mean,

I would say treason.

But then again, we don't even have a serious

law.

It's really a culpable violation

of the Constitution. And

Congress is supposed to check

that. But since they are under the

thumb, because for later

release funds, they cannot do it.

Yeah.

That's the dynamics

there. And that's why I

think,

we have to do something

about it, because this will

this will really be a big problem

for us.

This will magnify

later on into other problems

unless we put

a check on this.

Yeah. And so therefore,

talagang importante

for Sen.

Rizon Tavares and others to

really in aid of legislation,

not just for political investigation

or anything like that, to do something

about it so that we can

move forward.

The problem, though, is hindi ba dapat

komiti ng National Defense

or Foreign Affairs?

I mean, Foreign Affairs is under IME.

National Defense is under Jinggoy.

What about, I mean, we also have that

dynamic in the Senate, right?

Yeah. Well, I don't know in what

committee it will be

sent.

I think that's the call of

the

the Senate president and the majority.

They want to be sent.

They want to give it to another committee.

But I suppose it will go to the National Defense, probably.

Yeah, which is, I think, Jinggoy's right.

Or it could go to the committee of

of Senator Padilla,

who chairs the Committee on Revision of Laws.

Ayan, okay.

Of course, our resident constitutional expert, right?

Yes, it can go to that.

And while it should go

properly to the Committee on Revision of Laws

Committee on the Revision of Laws,

and that will be under

Constitutional Amendments.

Robin Padilla.

Yeah, Robin Hood Padilla, apparently.

Robin Hood, that's correct.

Is the real name.

I mean, otherwise, you still have the options of,

I don't know, Committee Ni Bato or

Kayetano. Di ba? I think Kayetano always chares the Committee.

I mean, wouldn't we expect Senator Cayetano to be a little bit more vocal about this issue

considering he was the Foreign Affairs Secretary during whose time allegedly this kind of gentleman's agreement

at least came up, if not agreed upon, per hierarchy.

I mean, why would even a hierarchy make up stuff like that?

I mean, I don't think it serves his interest unless this is about pleasing some people on the other side.

What's going on here?

I don't know what committee chairs.

But in the case of the charter change, you know, charter change would fall under the committee of Senator Robin Hood Padilla

because it's a revision of the Committee on Constitutional Law and Revision of Laws.

But they created the Senate, the Senate President created as subcommittee.