Questions raised by Enrile-Trillanes Senate skirmish
Philippine Daily Inquirer
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,
Marikina City
Follow Us
Recent Stories:
Short URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/?p=37634
Tags: Albert del Rosario , Antonio Trillanes IV , Diplomacy , Foreign affairs , Juan Ponce Enrile , letters , treason
