{"id":245736,"date":"2020-02-21T20:50:02","date_gmt":"2020-02-22T01:50:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=245736"},"modified":"2020-02-21T20:50:02","modified_gmt":"2020-02-22T01:50:02","slug":"palace-to-heed-sc-ruling-on-vfa-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/02\/21\/palace-to-heed-sc-ruling-on-vfa-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"Palace to heed SC ruling on VFA issue"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said the Palace respects the Senate\u2019s plan to question before the High Court the legality of Duterte\u2019s termination of VFA sans the concurrence of the chamber. (File Photo<\/a>: Office of the Presidential Spokesperson\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 Malaca\u00f1ang on Friday said it would heed the Supreme Court (SC) in case it rules that President Rodrigo Duterte\u2019s abrogation of the Philippines’ Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States (US) needs prior consent from the Senate.<\/p>\n

Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo said the Palace respects the Senate\u2019s plan to question before the High Court the legality of Duterte\u2019s termination of VFA sans the concurrence of the chamber.<\/p>\n

\u201cEh \u2018di (i)<\/em>-elevate\u00a0nila<\/em>.\u00a0Wala namang problema doon<\/em>\u00a0(Elevate the issue, if they want. There\u2019s no problem with that),\u201d Panelo told Palace reporters.<\/p>\n

The Department of Foreign Affairs on February 11 sent to the US the formal notice of the Philippines\u2019 revocation of the VFA.<\/p>\n

The VFA, signed in February 1998, stipulates conditions for the conduct of visit of US forces to the Philippines.<\/p>\n

The agreement, which was deemed by Duterte as disadvantageous to the Philippines, will be terminated 180 days after Washington received the formal termination notice.<\/p>\n

Panelo, however, acknowledged that while Duterte has no plan to overturn his decision, SC has the final say on VFA\u2019s fate.<\/p>\n

He said the executive branch will follow the SC in the event that it sides with senators that there is a need for Senate nod on the withdrawal of the military pact.<\/p>\n

\u201cEh di susundin natin. Basta kung ano ang batas yun ang susundin natin. Yung ang sabi ni Presidente<\/em>\u00a0(We will follow SC. Whatever the law says, we will comply. That\u2019s what the President said),\u201d Panelo said.<\/p>\n

Some senators, including Senate President Vicente Sotto III and Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, are expected to file a petition before SC, questioning Duterte\u2019s move to scrap the VFA.<\/p>\n

Last week, Sotto said the Senate respects Duterte\u2019s power to uphold an independent foreign policy but wants SC to rule whether the chamber\u2019s blessing is needed for the termination of the military accord.<\/p>\n

Drilon, meanwhile, warned that the executive\u2019s insistence that Duterte has the sole authority to terminate VFA would lead to \u201cserious consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n

US President Donald Trump earlier said it was fine that Duterte ended the military deal, as Washington DC would be able to \u201csave a lot of money.\u201d<\/p>\n

Panelo earlier said Duterte scrapped the VFA to pursue his plan for the Philippines to stand on its own when it comes to boosting its military\u2019s defense capabilities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0\u2014 Malaca\u00f1ang on Friday said it would heed the Supreme Court (SC) in case it rules that President Rodrigo Duterte\u2019s …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":187138,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-ruth-abbey-gita-carlos","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245736"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":245737,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245736\/revisions\/245737"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/187138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}