Questions raised by Enrile-Trillanes Senate skirmish
This refers to the article “Aquino should back DFA chief vs Trillanes, says Biazon” (Inquirer, 9/20/12).
After the hullabaloo that the nation witnessed during the verbal tussle between Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, I share the view of Rep. Rodolfo Biazon that “President (Aquino) could not afford to digress from the official government position on the dispute as already expressed by the Department of Foreign Affairs.”
There are now many questions lingering in our minds following the disclosure of the content of the notes of Philippine Ambassador to China Sonia Brady. Let me share some of them:
1. Was there a diplomatic impasse in the official channel used by Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, which warranted back-channeling by Senator Trillanes?
2. What were the goals achieved by the back-channel negotiation, goals that were not achieved by the official channel?
3. Was the back-channel approach illegal and improper?
4. Did the back-channeling enrich Secretary Del Rosario’s negotiation with China?
5. Was the act of Senator Trillanes treasonous?
—REGINALD B. TAMAYO,
assistant city council secretary,
Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94