By Genalyn Kabiling President Duterte was not trying to belittle the Constitution when he recently described it as a toilet paper in the territorial conflict with China, Malacañang clarified Tuesday. Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo
(OPS / MANILA BULLETIN) The President's remark was a mere “metaphor” to show that China will not respect the country's laws if raised to assert our claims in the West Philippine Sea, Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo explained. “That’s not belittling. You’re putting a meaning to something that is not implied. The implication there is the Chinese government will never respect our Constitution with respect to their claim of sovereignty over their island or waters,” he said. “If we have our own Constitution saying you cannot do that, you cannot do this, oh di wala rin kaming pakialam sa Constitution mo. Ganun din ang sasabihin natin sa kanila, it’s the same. ,” he added. The President recently said China would only tell him to use the Constitution as a toilet paper if he uses the document to assert the country's claims in the disputed waters. Duterte, a lawyer by profession, argued that the constitutional provision mandating the State to protect the nation’s marine wealth and reserving its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipinos was for “the thoughtless and the senseless.” Duterte made the remarks after admitting that China could not be prevented from fishing in the country's exclusive economic zone due to a mutual agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The 2016 verbal deal between the two leaders included China's commitment not to block Filipino fishermen in Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal. Amid the criticisms on the President’s “toilet paper” remark, Panelo explained that the Palace recognizes the Constitution as a “living instrument,” and “not just a scrap of paper.” But he pointed out that China is unlikely to listen to the Philippines if it uses the Constitution to defend its territorial claims. “What he (Duterte) means is that China will not listen to us, saying that ‘but our Constitution says so.’ They will tell us, ‘So what? As far as we are concerned, we own this, that doesn’t matter to us,’” Panelo said. “That's what the President meant. It's not literally showing the document. That’s a metaphor,” he said. Nonetheless, Panelo said the President remains committed to fulfil his constitutional duty to serve and protect the people in the wake of the uproar over the fishing deal with China in the country's waters. He insisted that the President did not violate the Constitution over the fishing arrangement in the disputed region. He said the President merely wanted to protect the people and avoid an escalation of the conflict in the South China Sea. “The government is the creation of the people to serve and protect them from danger and extinction. This is precisely the reason the framers of the Constitution have immortalized the raison d’etre of a government, which is: its prime duty is to serve and protect the people. This is found in Section 4 of Article 2 of the Constitution,” he said. He said the provision, found in Section 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution, on protecting the natural resources and marine wealth was “actually designed to safeguard their very existence and survival.” “Because in the hierarchy of rights, the right to life takes precedence over the right to property,” he pointed out.