On Philippine Sovereignty and Sovereign Rights

Published: July 14, 2022

By: Peter Paul Mabitad, BA in Political Science

According to Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” The concept of sovereignty was conceived when medieval political philosopher Jean Bodin explained its nature and function in his famous work “Six Books of the State.”

Bodin defined sovereignty as the absolute and perpetual power of the state to command. Whosoever has sovereignty possesses the greatest power to command. In the case of the Philippines as a democratic state, is the aforementioned constitutional provision can be held consistent with the original idea of Bodin on sovereignty? That the will of the people is present in the decision of the sovereign magistrate?

Sovereignty is where the power originates and to whom people received authority. In a democratic country, the sovereign power of the people is exercised through an election. Except in countries that adhere to the rule of the majority, the candidates who get the most popular votes will have a place in the government. Therefore, the sovereignty possessed by the State and exercised by the government is derived from the will of the people.

Within the Executive Department, the President has its Cabinet Members, and their acts are considered the acts of the President. To plainly put it, the acts of the government are considered acts of the people. But if the sovereign magistrate’s actions are not inclined to the will of the people and would have the abuse of power, then the people would have the right to revolt against it, though not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

Notwithstanding this, Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that, “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” The sovereign power held by the government is not absolute because public accountability is guaranteed by the Constitution.

It was reported recently that President Rodrigo Roa Duterte would be facing impeachment charges because of his inaction on China’s persistent intrusion into the West Philippine Sea. Through time, China was able to take control of the contested waters by building artificial islands. There were even instances that Filipino fishermen were harassed and driven away from the West Philippine Sea. A case in point was the recent sinking of the Filipino fishing boat, Gem Ver, by a Chinese vessel in the Recto Bank. The issue elicited diverse comments from the people. However, President Duterte cautioned that he was not ready or inclined to go to war against China and that he was more inclined to a more delicate balanced act and a peaceful way of settling the issue.

Based on the Social Weather System survey conducted on 11 July 2019, ninety-three percent of the Filipinos responded that the Philippine Government should regain the islands occupied by China in the West Philippine Sea. Cognizant of the sentiment of the people, the President was constrained to reiterate the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to Chinese President Xi Jin Ping during his visit to China. However, the Chinese leader rejected the assertion of the President. Whether or not the assertion of Philippine sovereign rights by the President would be enough to invoke immunity from impeachment is a matter that can only be evaluated by Congress.

As a compromise, it was reported that the Philippines and China agreed to explore jointly the West Philippine Sea. The constitutionality of the joint exploration will largely depend on how will the Philippine Supreme Court harmonize the conflict between the Philippine Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is, therefore, clear that Jean Bodin’s idea on sovereignty cannot be made wholly applicable to the complex situation of the Philippines. This renders truism to the settled principle in international law that state sovereignty is absolute and indivisible in the domestic sphere, but it is not without limitation in the international domain, especially when treaties and executive agreements are entered into by the States.