So much has been said about the face Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Perfecto Yasay had when he announced the results of the Arbitration Case between Philippines and China.
A lot castigated Yasay for not joining their jubilation. For them, that face is the face of a traitor.
He has been ridiculed, trashed, some people demand that he resigns. But history will vindicate Yasay; and because of this face and the great geopolitical struggle in which it's associated, he will be declared as our finest foreign affairs secretary and one of the greatest statesman in Asian history.
If sober prudent heads win over the childish and pitchfork-bearing #CHexit folks, then Yasay's face would be hailed by historians as the face that prevented the launch of a thousand ships. If the childish and pitchfork-bearing #CHexit folks win, Yasay's face would be hailed by historians as the direction to the path that should have been taken.
But we can't see the value of Yasay's face because of our impoverished sense of history. Our history books are full of people who went to war. Heroism is associated with blood, dying for one's belief, anything that involves relentless call to kill whoever is perceived as the enemy. Our national anthem even ends in death: "ang mamatay ng dahil sayo." But they are silent on those people who had the courage to say NO to passions of their time and made decisions that averted disasters.
As time unravels, we will see that Duterte and Yasay will be hailed as the British Gen Sir Mike Jackson and James Blunt - yes the singer - of this conflict. And those who are against Duterte and Yasay are the US General Wesley Clarks.
During the Kosovo War, US General Wesley Clark ordered Blunt and his troops to take over an airfield in Pristina. However, the Russians got there first. US General Clark ordered Blunt to attack them. Blunt refused, even at the pain of being court-martialed. Blunt was backed up by British Gen Sir Mike Jackson, who said: ""I'm not going to have my soldiers be responsible for starting World War III." What Blunt and his superior did was illegal, but it was legitimate. It aptly demonstrates the difference between legality and legitimacy. Here's the full story of Blunt's defiance.
And Justice Antonio Carpio and his legal disciples will never ever be able to judge issues of legitimacy because they are political questions. Courts are never the proper fora to address and resolve political questions. In international relations, issues of legitimate interests are among these questions. Justice Carpio knows this very well because there's no reason he doesn't know the "political question doctrine," which states that courts of law don't have jurisdiction over political questions, and they are properly addressed through political means.
