Rubba dub dub, three men in a tub: Albayalde, Lorenzana, and Locsin

Secretary Lorenzana and Chinese Ambassador Zhao [Photo Source Philippine Star]

By JoeAm

There are any number of secretaries I could pick for this little lesson, I suppose. But I chose three whose characters and acts help frame the discussion.

There are three forces that define the men and women of government high offices: (1) the people and institutions that shaped them as younger people, (2) the current political arena in which they work, and (3) their strengths of character, which includes intelligence, self-esteem, and values.

  • Police Chief Oscar Albayalde
  • Secretary of Defense Delfin Lorenzana
  • Secretary of Foreign Affairs Teodoro Locsin, Jr.

I selected these three people because they arrived on the job with similar backgrounds but one, Chief Albayalde, seems to have bent to the totalitarian demands of the Duterte Administration. Secretaries Lorenzana and Locsin have held onto a position both supportive of the Administration . . . it is their job, after all . . . while remaining personally aloof or independent from the totalitarian demands that would otherwise turn them into sycophants.

Let’s consider the the three men. Albayalde and Lorenzana have values shaped by the Philippine Military Academy and ethics of militaristic discipline. Both have had distinguished careers under several Administrations. Secretary Locsin was shaped by his father’s substantial high bearing and his own service to President Cory Aquino, a woman of dignity and honor. He was outside the military’s demand for self-containment, however. He was the opposite, a writer used to free and open expression. We see this in his outrageous Twitter comments, unrestrained, often literary, sometimes fictional or for effect. Anything but ordinary.

Chief Albayalde and Chief Liar Bikoy [Photo source: CNN Philippines]

All three were outsiders to the Davao Cabal from which President Duterte draws a lot of officials. They accepted jobs within an administration that they most certainly understood would test their character and values. Maybe that is why they accepted the jobs. They had the courage and confidence to do what others might not do, or lackeys might do, but they were not lackeys themselves. They were professionals on a life’s path that presented them with a huge challenge . . . and opportunity. They perhaps understood that they could serve the nation better than others who might be given the assignments. They were better qualified. They had a special obligation, in that respect.

They would march to the front of the battlefield and do their best.

So all three were of substantial background, and they were all willing to enter the social and political arena and deal with the pressures there.

In terms of character, again the three men are more alike than different. Intelligent, no doubt. Confident, no doubt. Of high values, no doubt.

But it seems to me Chief Albayalde has become an apologist for the Administration, Secretary Lorenzana has not, and Secretary Locsin is hard to read (he supports the drug war, but is wary of China). There is no question that they do their best to serve the President but they have different levels of “national and personal conscience”:

Lorenzana the highest, Locsin in the middle, and Albayalde the least.

My guess is that President Duterte leans on Chief Albayalde harder than he does on Secretaries Lorenzana and Locsin. Albayalde was given charge over an existing abusive campaign to snuff street drugs and the people associated with them. His appointment came with more specific, harder expectations. Lorenzana and Locsin were told to “do their best”. They had ample room to speak as professionals in their own right . . . although both had instances in which they walked back their approach and words after getting instructions from their boss.

Secretary Locsin with US Secretary of State Pompeo [Photo source DFA by Clark Galang, via Yahoo News]

The demands on Albayalde seem to have reshaped his character. These days, he seems less the general and more the sergeant, following orders.

And yet, and yet . . .there is a glimmer of the General now and then.

If we look at how the three men deal with China, we can see that none of the three is a sycophant of the Duterte friendship policy. Albayalde has cited the Chinese gambling establishments as a security risk. Lorenzana agrees that the gambling sites are a risk and has been sharply critical of the Chinese military’s incursions into Philippine waters . . . even to the point of labeling the Chinese ambassador’s rationalizations as “preposterous”. Locsin has always centered his diplomatic work on properly representing Philippine sovereignty, and that stance has gotten progressively firmer as China persists in taking advantage of Duterte’s soft approach. One gets the idea he is one Tweet away from letting his considerable passion for Philippine history rip.

I read accusations regularly that the three men are Duterte stooges and even that they are “traitors”. I personally think that is off the mark. Their outcomes have not all been written yet. When they are, I’m guessing that the final text will show at least two of the three to be loyal to the Philippines. Period.

To get there, I have to set aside the idea that they must do things as I would do them to be upstanding.

“Huh? You saying I’m wrong, JoeAm?”

I mean, none of us was there when they were offered the job. We were at the beach or at work or school. We presume they took it as lightly as we do when we type an opinion on social media. No. No. They did not have it that easy. They knew what they faced, the risks, the challenges, and the rewards. They knew what President Duterte expected of them. I’m betting it was a gut-wrenching decision. Not easy.

They each, I am confident, believed they could remain whole, characterwise, while serving the nation. And the President.

Not the other way around.

What is my point in writing this?

We live in a world of easy opinions where every social media denizen is an expert in his own mind.

Somewhere along the way we’ve lost the ability to respect each other. We’ve each become a little China, a little Duterte, a little totalitarian. Hard of opinion, unbendable, working on the win . . . not collaboration.

Although we do not have to agree with the ways and decisions of these three secretaries, they’ve done enough for the Philippines to warrant our recognition that they are doing hard work. Every day. Stressful, challenging, sweaty work.

Most of us are just coasting on the keyboard.

I frankly think we will make better decisions, live richer lives, and build a better nation by doing some hard work ourselves . . . the hard work of putting respect first, opinions when and where they can help build something, and final judgments when all the data are in.


81 Responses to “Rubba dub dub, three men in a tub: Albayalde, Lorenzana, and Locsin”
  1. @Chempo, totally off topic, I note today’s news linking former SOJ Aguirre to the Bangladesh bank heist:

  2. karlgarcia says:

    Irineo connected Lorenzana to a Calida sibling, he can just correct me if wrong.
    I still consider him outside the Davao group, though.

  3. Ancient Mariner says:

    In my opinion the body language of Albayalde fully supports your assessment of his character, particularly his demotion to Sgt.

  4. popoy says:

    Filipino soldiers walking under full moon, logistics and ordnance demo

  5. popoy says:

    Can Metro-Manila traffic cops still dance when cars, buses and truck are all on DEAD stop.

  6. popoy says:

    I used to thirst for knowledge about Gurkhas before I got to interview a Security Chief of a Hotel in Hongkong until to be luckiest enough to be housemate of a UN volunteer named Jitendra who turned out to be a retired Superintendent of the Nepal Military Academy. Well, AFP General de los Santos was at the time overall military chief of all military volunteer forces in East Timor before it became the youngest country in early 2000.

  7. popoy says:

    Okay, okay, LAST NA ITO.

    • I suppose the thing that strikes me most about all these people marching and preening and being disciplined, obedient, loyal, and patriotic in symbol is that there is a place where little boys and men cross, from games to killing, but the trappings are a lot alike. In the context of the blog article, we have a crossing of time, of men (and women), and events. Values such as loyalty and patriotism, discipline and obedience, march into each person’s daily acts.

      What I am calling for in the blog is avoidance of easy judgments, or quick judgments, when what we are witness to is tension between people and events, and not finality of any act by any person.

      I think my next step will be to write a pro-Duterte article in the style that ought to be used, but is not, for the easy and successful ways of propaganda, trolls, lies, and secrets.

      • NHerrera says:


        It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way.

        Most if not all of us here at TSH have read that or a part of that — a timeless gem from Charles Dickens.

        I note from your comment above, Joe that you are trying to complete drawing the “circle” with your blog, a la Dickens . With a further note — after reading your many blogs — that you are using both eyes in this fashion:

        A version of a mechanical compass is one where one eye sights the direction of a target through an optical lens with the direction read from the rim of a magnetic disc, while the other eye sights the target too — so that both are synchronized.

        In your case, as is the case I believe with some of us, one eye is on your oft-repeated beacon based on the Constitution and high-end values; while trying to see the other side but one based on some rationality.

        [The attempt at drawing the full circle is also being done by the three officials you cited with Albayalde’s I believe the most off-balance.]

  8. NHerrera says:


    Israel Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines’s Tweet honoring Manuel Quezon and Manuel Roxas is indeed remarkable in that we have had [and most probably have in the near future] leaders of high values and wisdom — without counting the three Aquinos themselves. I am very proud to be a Filipino.

  9. NHerrera says:


    Secretary Lorenzana: Oh yeah?

  10. Francis says:

    I agree.

    As contradictory as it sounds—I’ve always sympathised with both bureaucrats/technocrats and activists.

    The public-at-large can be bums at times. “Do this!” “Do that!” I—a mere online observer—admit I am a bum. However, I know this at least. It’s one thing to talk about politics. It’s another thing to be in it, to have skin in the game.

    Don’t you know how hard is it (for the technocrat) to plan and implement policy—who takes credit, who to convince, who to not piss off, the logistics and finessing to pull it all off. Don’t you know how hard is it (for the moderate activist) to constantly go to his bureaucratic counterparts, convince them of the validity of his ideas—despite possessing barely any political leverage in this godforsaken country lacking any actual major political parties, compromise while not pissing off one’s grassroots base, to see a single election wipe out momentum in six years?

    Heck, even the rallyists: Don’t you know how hard is it even (for the radical activist) to plan all those rallies, to pull of the logistics of organising that much people, to march on the streets even when the half the nation thinks you’re traitors to the nation and the other half thinks you’re being “impolite” ha?

    Of course, the irony is that people who dedicate their lives to the public sphere—whether within government or without—live rather thankless lives, as they receive constant brick bats from the “always wise and never wrong” public. It must be easy, to bet nothing and win always.


    On a distantly related note.

    I find myself not hating the officials of the Duterte administration. Or even Duterte. If they’re malevolent spirits—I’d direct my ire to the summoners…

    I find myself rather cursing instead the various PR lackeys/bloggers/consultants/producers who apparently earn double-digit millions from directing this theatre production, who see this all as way to earn a buck—or rather, a “game” or a “challenge.”

    • karlgarcia says:

      Very well said. Let me zoom in to political handlers/PR machines, case in point Isko Moreno.

    • karlgarcia says:

      I moderate my hard views, but sometimes I just share or retweet them. I know how hard policy making and implementation is, how hard it is to plan,execute only for things to go awry, but we make most out of it as they say lemonades from lemons.

      On another note it is also hard to be neutral because most of the time a neutral individual have friends or loved ones from opposing fences, otherwise they are just bums.

    • chemrock says:

      What do you think of legislators who spend most of their time politiking and jostling for personal gains and then come up with a retroactive law that leaves executives to figure out the loose ends? I’m referring to the GCTA that allows early of prisoners on good behaviour.

      Seems now the executive is forced to go back to legisltors to define “hienious” crimes.

      Seems to me it was a sloppy piece of legislation open to hienious abuse. Is crafting the law that difficult?

      Where it is wrong
      – retrospective. Laws must never be retrospective, ever.
      – subjective. It is based on good behaviour. On whose say so? Wardens? In Philippines this is a floodgate for gratification. 500 pesos may buy one a good behaviour certificate. Bet you all those who stand witness against de Lima are all lined up for early release.
      – whether prisoner has been rehabilitated is not an issue. Will he rob again, rape again, steal again, etc? No professional psychiatrist or psychologist reports?
      – victims’ voice denied. Victims or their families denied participation. They should have the final say.
      – arguing over definition of serious crimes is seriously stupid. Judges gave several life sentences, or in perpetua, for the very purpose of denying such prisoners ever set foot out of prison. That ought to disqualify a prisoner from GCTA , not the silly issue of determining what is a hienious crime. The judges know better than legislators or wardens.
      – no post release management. Prisoners released early should not be totally free. Where is the parole management system?

      So there you go. It’s not the public service is tough. It’s sloppy work.

      All jobs are tough. The engineer managing a construction project, the commander leader his soldiers in a deployment, Leni Robredo going into the poor countryside to deliver aid — all are equally tough jobs.

      • popoy says:

        What will an academician think as he reads the comments from Francis to Karl, to TSoH, to Chemrock in this segment of the blog? To be fair, the neuron’s reaction should be, it is educational. To an academiac, it is an opportunity to perform exercises on mental gymnastics from theory to practice which could TAKE days of monologue and soliloquy in a provincial setting to demonstrate thoughts being outlandishly stilted.

        While teaching I used to barbecue their arguments and agreements (not the students) about governance issues by locating the case (no correct or incorrect solution) at hand to a simple paradigm from the most concrete and specific (like genes or DNA) to the broadest and most abstract (like happiness or simply the good life). Even then I avoided the word matrix which Keanu Reeves portrayed in movies proving matrix is best as an idea of pretentious fiction.

        Anyway, you may call it popoy paradigm (a simple outline) is quite long and expansive. That’s what’s public administration is all about –a mere meandering river from whose watershed comes the numerous tributaries and canals which could be any of the arts and sciences.

        Okay. From the paradigm let’s focus on that part from National Goal- National Policy – National Programs – Projects – Activities – Tasks. Explaining the entire paradigm in inductive and deductive terms could be a bulky semester graduate course.

        Okay again, discussant Francis could be asked pertaining to TASK. Is the President performing ACTUALLY the nitty-gritty tasks of a policeman? a soldier, a prosecutor, a department secretary, a police or army general, tasks given to ranks and mostly file; but not within the broad and specific role which president had sworn to as required by the constitution?

        In its broader aspects, is national policy based on determined national goal defined by a political platform? Is national policy contextualized by policy analysis into content and policy process of formulation, implementation and evaluation? Has policy been operationalized into programs and projects reckoned by opportunity cost on their consumption of national resources (mainly money and manpower)?

        A public administration paradigm should lead to cold cut and dry explanations why politicians, technocrats, bureaucrats and lowlifes behave the way they do as real public servants, scoundrels and scalawags. It may not be really only for the money; it could be the lingering high caused by power, by inclination and opportunity.

        Nevertheless, and whatever, negative public service behaviour needs skills and deep knowledge of irrationality and bent reason to be paid and sustained by public funds. By nature, and thank God, morons and imbeciles do not qualify to be public service rascals. They have been denied the neurons to inflict “bakukang” on the public interest.

        Nonetheless finally,The popoy paradigm has already been mothballed for 19 years and may already be obsolete given the evolved sophistication of mis-governance.

  11. popoy says:

    I have NOT read yet the content of the news but memories during the early 70s came rushing back of a moment in AFP-CGSC. When a gallant young PAF Colonel Caste’ in the course of an intellectual argument admonished a classmate: Sir, your reasoning are good and intelligent but you are only JUSTIFYING YOUR INADEQUACIES. Cooler colonels intervened to avoid exchange of blows.

    When Moses received the tablets of the Ten Commandments, and he saw the festivities of the pagans down the slopes of the mountain, he threw down the rock tablets angrily at them shouting: PURO UTOS, PURO UTOS.

    PERHAPS when SOME readers cogitated the news in the link:

    They could have shouted too: Puro Excuses, Puro Excuses Not knowing that FREE Philippines have treaties of friendship and mutual defense with the strongest nation of the free world. Before forming conclusions and be judgmental, it will be most informative to read the pros and cons comments of readers on the news personality of the day.

  12. popoy says:

    From a theoretical mind which
    could be mistaken to be an academiac:

    A constitution defines a society
    A culture operationalizes its policy
    Which gives it its unique character.
    People and its institutions give it status
    Social as well as economic status
    defines their low or high standings
    before the world.

    It is role, it is ROLE that clarifies,
    Separates men from monkeys
    It is role, playing, living a role
    that distinguishes beasts from men.
    It is the role of law in a human society
    and NOT the rule of jungle law
    that must be first in theory and practice.

    But even a functional illiterate
    must understand STATUS
    Before a person can perform a ROLE
    Correctly, to win the Academy Award
    Of LEADERSHIP, of statesmanship.

    It’s elementary, so says a psychologist
    STATUS(es) are clear statements of your
    Specific duties and responsibilities and
    Not those of your subordinates or
    Those outside the purview of your office.

    Your ROLE is the dynamic aspect of your STATUS.
    Doing your duties and accepting your responsibilities
    Brings life and action into your status.
    To perform a ROLE therefore is not
    like to obey or enforce A RULE of LAW
    in an imagined jungle not necessary
    in an organized, harmonized human Zoo.

    Ay Naku. Mukhang lalong lumabo ng husto eh. When

    What I just wanted to say is the RULE of law presumes
    More negativities; while the ROLE of law or anything
    Offers a positive, wider and clean magnifying glass.
    Put another way, take the top ten UN countries
    in human development Index and assess the role
    and contribution of lawyers, psychologists and sociologists.

    • popoy says:

      After the above post, the news came hours or a day late when the majesty of a Pinay woman judge’s integrity came in bold relief like the perfect contours of the slopes of Mt. Mayon spewing out unexpected reminder of latent power of cataclysmic explosion. The lady judge knows the rule of law has consistently been made a joke and a crime against the mal-performance of the role of law. If the above lines are faulty and irrational, readers should be assured it’s not copied and pasted like the LINK below:

      • popoy says:

        I just used in my comment above: nature like Mayon Volcano as incorruptible metaphor of truth and majestic power of divine vendetta. NOW this guy uses STORM CLOUDS as powerful reminder as warning metaphor. This guy I wrote here in TSoH once after reading about him will be the next if not a future President of the USA. What he says in the link is USA Presidential.

        • I’m not sure he is enough a part of the political establishment to get a candidacy going. There would need to be a sizable public demand for him to run (as a Republican I presume). I’ve not read of anything.

          • Yeah, I agree Mattis will have to run as a Democrat. but more importantly, he has no appetite for politics.

            More more democrats are falling, I fear the last ones standing will not be able to weather Trump.

            So he’ll get his 2nd term, then both parties will re-set, and another popularity contest will ensue. FYI, I love Mattis, he made the troops understand what was a very un-understandable war(s).

            Those types of generals are rare.

        • Here’s a great example of that,

          • “Hold the line”

            “Two powers:”

            1. Inspiration

            2. Intimidation

            “Listen to your NCOs”

            Did you notice when some one yelled “God bless America!”, Mattis tried to ignore it, just said

            ‘yep!’ chuckles, thumbs up. essentially ignoring the statement.



            “From our first days at San Diego, Parris Island, or Quantico, NCOs bluntly explained to us that the Corps would be entirely satisfied if we gave 100%, and entirely dissatisfied if we gave 99%. And those NCOs taught us the great pleasure of doing what others thought impossible.” – from a speech Mattis gave when receiving the Marine Corps University Foundation’s 2014 Semper Fidelis Award.

            “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” – Mattis on the Taliban, at a 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, California. This one caused some trouble for Mattis. Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee defended him, but said “should have chosen his words more carefully.”

            “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim. It’s really a hell of a lot of fun. You’re gonna have a blast out here! I feel sorry for every son of a bitch that doesn’t get to serve with you.” – Mattis drawing an important distinction between assholes and sons of bitches to a group of Marines in Iraq, as quoted by Thomas E. Ricks in his book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005

            “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on the left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.”– from a letter Mattis wrote to the 1st Marine Division, the day before they began their assault on Iraq in 2003.

              • That last quote is what drew Trump’s ire , Joe, essentially because he’s a Globalist, where Trump et al are Nationalists (ie. MAGA).

                I ‘m with Mattis here, but my “nationalist” stance is simply that we are funding way too much on behalf of the world, the U.N. (of which many Filipinos are part of the bureaucracy) is essentially welfare program for the 3rd world, NATO western Europe needs to pay its share, the Arab world with their money should foot more of the bill, the erroneous buying of support in Af-Pak and Iraq, now Syria, is just wrong. We threw money at the problem.

                Mattis is correct in his little impromptu speech to the young troops below (video) that America has two powers:

                1. the Power of Inspiration

                2. the Power of Intimidation

                he forgets the third,

                3. the Power (luxury) to Throw Money at Problems

                STOP the 3rd (or severely limit it ) and America will be Great Again. 😉 I was witness to loads and loads of cash (in pallets) just thrown about in the 3rd world. Pallets. my generation saw the futility of that.

              • Joe, it’s like when you have a group of friends, and you’re always volunteering to treat everyone, for dinner, the movies, at the bar, in the casa, “it’s my treat, guys”, “i’ll take the bill, waitress!”, “which girls do you all want, I’m paying!!!”, etc. etc.

                Eventually, your friends will just assume… well I guess he’s paying again. Sucker.

                That’s how it’s been post WWII. Trump’s the only president who has addressed this disparity. We can ding him for all sorts of other screw-ups, but in principle so long as he continues not letting America be the world’s stooge here, I’m 100% in support, Joe.

                Joe, to connect it to the current blog,

                and why you ask the DU30 administration is pro-China, it’s like these Epstein victims doing interviews on TV of late, when they are asked by reporters, why did you keep going over there? They usually look down and to the left, and say because I was scared of Epstein… so I took his money and went to culinary school, or went on luxurious shopping sprees, took Mediterranean and Caribbean vacations, etc.

                the short and honest answer, and this applies to the Philippines, is because he had the money.

                Epstein: victims

                China: the Philippines

          • popoy says:

            I haven’t thought of posting links for no comparison of speeches of Pres Obama and Trump.
            I could be wrong but the Fuhrer was a corporal; another corporal in the reserve became martial law administrator. This previous last sentence could be fake news.

            • popoy says:

              After all is said and done, it’s song and music of a nation’s soul that’s it:

              • popoy says:

                Last na po ito; huli man daw pag napakagaling nangunguna pa rin:

              • I will place you in moderation to moderate the pace of postings. As I mentioned before, I encourage dialogue, original dialogue, keyed to the subject of the blog in the main. You Tube is a channel for video, here they should be accents to the discussion.

  13. madlanglupa says:

    Albayalde? Everyday feels more and more like he’s the cop version of Fabian Ver.

    Locsin, the loose cannon which may explain why ABS disowned him, has his inner beast unleashed as soon as he was allowed to throw around right-wing expressions as much as a genuine troll does.

    Lorenzana is more of a wildcard, as AFP is getting much patronage of funding and hardware if only to keep the President in his office, the old man knowing that Aquino’s presidency was plagued by mutinies.

  14. popoy says:

    NO worry there TSoH on moderation
    unlike Philippine precipitation
    when it rains I shall no longer pour
    I’d be Amihan and banish Habagat
    all year round, if I may, ask Pagasa
    to understand.

    • We’re in the same boat, Popoy.
      Because great minds think alike. 😉

      • popoy says:

        I am so ashamed to be shamelessly
        categorized as having a great mind
        (can’t even passed Math 101), worst
        for being placed under moderation.

        Drink (in bars) with moderation and
        gamble (in casinos) with moderation
        I believe are invoked to remind
        and caution tendentious minds.

        Moderation in anything, anytime
        Can’t be a measure of great minds.
        Being placed in moderation
        In TSoH merely reflects inability
        to follow simple eche bucheche.

        This is not to deny somebody
        Really possesses a great kind of mind.
        I just try to mind my own business.

        • Don’t worry too much about how the blog is edited, just try to buy into the concept, that the blog is a place where discussion is intelligent, trolls, agenda pushers, and salesmen are not allowed, and articles are meant to inspire thought and insight. Pursue the goal of building intelligent discussion anchored by the blog article, and you will help build one of the best discussion places around. Follow the basic guidelines of discussion over links, picture, and videos, don’t deal at the personal level, be respectful of the young people and conservative people who read now and then and don’t like obscene words or ideas . . . it is all good. These are a few of the responsibilities that go with group well-being.

  15. Micha says:

    Hahaha, our clown of a president is in China to “assert” the Hague ruling.

    Funniest idiot, evah.

    • kasambahay says:

      our president got asserted, na-verbal and has no return volley. aba napagsabihan ng chinese mona lisa na si xi, and wont be mentioning the ruling again. ang daling mapatalbog itong presidente natin! na-rammed ng chinese, lol!

      buti pa yong recto 22 lumaban, habang si duterte ay walang laban, his entourage sina medialdea, bong go, lorenzana, locsin et al, parang mga kandilang nakatirik lang, na-happened. prime example of men who rarely think on their feet, had probly not anticipated mona lisa xi’s shrugging off the ruling. I would have thought duterte would defer the joint exploration depending on the result of the talk about the ruling, instead of acquiescing kaagad.

      full steam ahead si duterte sa joint exploration 60-40 with no guarantee china will stick to the agreed 60-40. itinaboy ang hauge ruling, yang 60-40 ay itataboy din.

      • As former Solicitor General Hilbay said, agreeing to joint development negates the arbitration victory, and the President was basically in China to give Philippine rights and resources away.

        • kasambahay says:

          yay! kung ako lang, I would have closed the border and refused them re-entry to our country, lol! they can all stay in china. mona lisa xi is kind host and friend to them all, smiling all the while. parasites should be with host, lol!

      • Micha says:


        What?? The shabuterte delegation did not anticipate Xi’s refusal to recognize the ruling?

        After all these years of our Dear Leader’s own refusal to recognize the arbitration? After years of bending over and playing the Chinese lapdog, did they really expect Xi to reverse his position on the matter?

        I’m ROTFLMAO…

        • kasambahay says:

          I was being kind to the oldies po, methuselah few times over ang combined ages nila. with age comes wisdom, hindi pala. china has taught the oldies heel, dogs, heel!

    • sonny says:

      FYI to those who have not been aware (like me). This is how the AP (via Yahoo News) reported the current event:

      BEIJING (AP) — Chinese President Xi Jinping told his Philippine counterpart that Beijing will not recognize an international arbitration ruling that has invalidated most of China’s claims to virtually the entire South China Sea, the Philippine leader’s spokesman said.
      The row over the disputed waters — a major global shipping route thought to be rich in oil and gas reserves — has for years marred China’s relationship with the Philippines and other neighboring countries with rival territorial claims. Beijing has transformed a string of disputed reefs into missile-protected island bases.

      Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has largely avoided the subject in favor of seeking warmer ties with Beijing. But under domestic pressure, Duterte raised the issue in talks with Xi in Beijing this week, Duterte spokesman Salvador Panelo said in a statement Friday.
      Duterte told Xi that the 2016 ruling of an international arbitration panel in The Hague, in which China had refused to participate, “is final, binding and not subject to appeal.”
      “In response, President Xi reiterated his government’s position of not recognizing the arbitral ruling as well as not budging from its position,” Panelo said.
      “Both President Duterte and President Xi agreed that while their variant positions will have to remain, their differences however need not derail nor diminish the amity between the two countries,” he added.

      He said that Duterte raised the possible joint exploration of resources between the Philippines and China, and both leaders agreed on the importance of self-restraint and respect of freedom of navigation.

      Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana asked Beijing earlier this month to explain the activities of Chinese research vessels and warships in what the Philippines claims as its waters, and accused China of “bullying.”
      Lorenzana said China did not ask for permission to send several warships through the Sibutu Strait at the southern tip of the Philippine archipelago on four occasions between February and July. He said two Chinese research ships have also been operating in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.
      Meanwhile, Philippine military spokesman Brig. Gen. Edgard Arevalo accused China of “duplicity,” saying the Chinese warships shut off their identification transponders while passing through Philippine waters to avoid radar detection.

      • kasambahay says:

        ‘both leaders agreed on the importance of self-restraint and respect of freedom of navigation.’ ibig sabihin nyan duterte must self restrained dahil china is not self restraining at all. duterte is all give, habang china is all take. worse po, duterte is continually rewarding china for bad behavior, awarding china the joint venture instead of putting china on notice until such a time. truly no need to rush the joint venture now, both oil and gas reserves are not going to evaporate, dwindle, or run away elsewhere, and both will still be there years from now.

        joint exploration is best conducted on better times, when china is neutral and less threatening.

        as for freedom of navigation, it’s mostly china who’s trespassing our eez or eez of others without much thought or pahintulot. code of conduct and pinas has to step back and be respectful of china’s right of way, always.

        it would have been honorable had lorenzana not signed ‘the menu’ presented and be privy to the demise or our nation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: