Since 1969, the Philippine government has been battling Communist Terrorists, yet it has not gained complete control of the security situation in the country in 2005. Considering the experiences gained in the long years of fighting terrorism, the police and the armed forces should have decimated the CPP/NPA and its Sparrow Unit and Alex Boncayao Brigade.  It could have successfully established peace and order throughout the nation, but the internal conditions during the period dictated otherwise.

The influx of foreign Islamists in Mindanao, like the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), and their association with the local terror groups, such as the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), has aggravated the already combustible situation in the South.  Subsequently, their close collaboration has become a serious threat to national security. ASG’s operational ties with JI and the Al-Qaeda network developed stronger as time went by, with bombings in Metro Manila and other parts of the country as their signature accomplishments.

So, what kept the Philippine government from winning its War on Terror, considering its counter-terror infrastructure, anti-terror policies and programs, and seasoned police and military forces?  What served as obstacles to the War on Terror that forestalled strategic successes? How did the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches miss the opportunity to collaborate in the War on Terror using the concepts and theories in public administration, as well as the utilization of the best practices in public governance?

The purpose of this case study is to analyze the anti-terrorism policies and programs of the Philippine government from 1969 to 2005 and examine why the governmental agencies responsible for enforcing them struggled to execute their mission, which consequently denied them complete victory.

This case study also focuses on the challenges faced by the Intelligence Community in its counter-terrorism operations. It presents how the system of governance hinders the Philippine government from achieving strategic success in the War on Terror.  Along this line, this book will examine how the prevailing culture in Philippine politics from 1969 to 2005 has impacted the intelligence operations against domestic and foreign terrorist groups.

: Available on eBook and Hard Copy. Order via amazon.com. 

 

For nine years, from the first bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, to its second attack on September 11, 2001, the United States encountered ten major terrorist attacks on the US mainland and the United States' interests overseas. These attacks have resulted in the total death of 6101 and injuries to 19,735 people.

The blame game and political mudslinging from the Republican and Democratic parties have not produced any positive results to address the problems of terrorism. On the other hand, the crisis highlighted the years of a dysfunctional relationship within the Intelligence Community, which the United States Congress revisited through its fact-finding commission, ultimately leading to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The establishment of DHS was a public policy statement by the United States government to counter threats to national security. It was the proactive approach of the Bush Administration to its domestic policy on terrorism. DHS carries out all the federal government's terrorism activities and programs.

The DHS was the result of a policy choice by elected officials, and their policy output led to the creation of the Department. On the other hand, the policy impact was the effect of both the policy choice and policy output, which was to protect the homeland against terrorist attacks from both domestic and transnational groups. The process of establishing DHS went through six stages in the public policy process, and these are: Agenda Setting, Policy Formulation, Decision Making, Implementation, and Evaluation.

Available on Amazon.com. Get your eBook or Hard Copy or Both. 

Duterte, China, and the West Philippine Sea: The President's Betrayal

    You can’t make this stuff up, can you?

    While in office, former President Rodrigo Duterte sought to have the Philippines become a province of China, and he undermined the Philippines’ territorial claim over the West Philippine Sea.

    Did Duterte serve the interests of the Philippines during his presidency, or promote China's foreign policy in Southeast Asia? I believe it’s the second premise, and that’s a shame because his foreign policy was preeminently pro-CCP and supportive of Xi Jinping's. He turned his back on the Philippines' traditional ally, the United States. 

    Do you recall Duterte's public pronouncement in 2016, when he said, “It’s time to say goodbye to Washington.” (Foreign Policy, November 2, 2021)

    Duterte exhorting Xi Jinping to make the Philippines one of China’s provinces is somewhat reprehensible, if not treasonous.

    The West Philippine Sea and the expanse of the South China Sea aren’t only strategically important to China’s military expansion in the Indo-Pacific region. These areas are abundant in mineral resources, including oil, gas, and other forms of natural gas, and rank among the largest in the world. Additionally, 12 percent of the global fish catch originates from these coveted waters. Moreover, around 21 percent of worldwide trade passes through the West Philippine Sea and the South China Sea, equating to about $3.4 trillion in annual global trade.

(Photo Credit: GeoCurrents -- geocurrents.info.blog)

    China has no legal or historical claim to the West Philippine Sea. Its assertion of maritime ownership of the West Philippine Sea and/or the entire South China Sea is based solely on the map published by the Republic of China in 1947, titled "Map of South China Sea Islands," which demarcates its territorial claims with eleven dashes, extending from Malaysia in the south to  Taiwan in the north.  Later on, it was downgraded to a nine-dash line in 1952 when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) took over the reins of government from the Kuomintang. 

    The Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration, an international tribunal, ruled in 2016 that the Philippines is the rightful claimant to the West Philippine Sea, which encompasses the Spratly Islands. This ruling is significant as it upholds the principles of international law and maritime rights as outlined in UNCLOS. But China, which didn't participate in the trial, defies this international court order with its relentless military provocations and incursions into the Philippine territory. 

    Even with the Hague's ruling, Duterte still sided with China and declared in 2021 that he'll 'throw away' Philippines' arbitral win versus China, “Sa usapang bugoy, sabihin ko sa iyo ibigay mo sa'kin, sabihin ko sa'yo putang ina, papel lang 'yan. Itatapon ko 'yan sa wastebasket.” (Phil Star, May 6, 2021)

   China's People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) military aggressions against the Philippine Coast Guard and the local fishermen's boats aren't only unlawful but dangerous as well. It should necessitate a robust condemnation from the United Nations (UN), especially given China's regular mockery of the legal frameworks outlined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Unfortunately, even the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are hesitant to express their official views on the PLAN's bullying or Grey Zone tactics in the West Philippine Sea, given China's primary trade partner status in the region.

    But the Philippines have found some great allies in the United States, the AUKUS alliance (comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia), and the First Island Chain countries (including Japan and Taiwan), which have been vocal in their support for the Philippines and in their condemnation of China's aggressive actions and military adventurism in the region.

    Might isn't right when a powerful country like China flexes its military strength to harm and bully a small but sovereign nation like the Philippines.

    It's about time the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. asserted the Philippines' sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea. This isn't just a task for the Filipino government leaders but a responsibility that all Filipinos must relentlessly pursue. Filipinos must unite as a nation behind the Sun and Stars and stand together in defense of their country's sovereignty.

    Right now, President Duterte is facing trial  before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in  the Netherlands for “crime against humanity” while serving in public office, notably as the President; may justice prevail in the court of law, even though Duterte's administration deprived thousands of Filipinos of their legal rights to seek justice--the same rights afforded to him by the ICC.