Pahayag ng Chinese ambassador na may 'pananakot', nabanggit sa budget hearing ng DND — GMA News

[0:00] Mayroon lang ano, may patanong lang yung ano, naghahabol kasi yung media natin, deadline. [0:05] Sikitang ako ng dalawa. [0:07] As I giveo, habang nagpre-presend kayo ng budget kanina, lumabas sa balita, [0:11] lami to quote the statement of the DFA Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, [0:16] summoned Chinese Ambassador Jing Kuan on October 19 to convey the Philippines serious concern and strong objection. [0:22] To his October 15 public statement which conveyed the threat to use of force. [0:26] So, ano ba ang treatment ng DND sa mga ganitong statement ng isang foreign diplomat? [0:32] I know that both of us are subject to being attacked by, I don't know, kung itong mga ito, mga tools to or ano. [0:43] But we are both, we just want to make it clear that both of us, me and myself and my secretary is a good, [0:51] we both studied in Xavier School, both studied Chinese, and I'm sure that he, we love our Chinese schoolmates and classmates. [1:01] So, it is not the Chinese people just to be straight, to set the record straight, [1:07] it's the expansionist stack of Xi Jinping's government. [1:17] So, probably, Sigur, just quickly, Secretary Gibo, how does the DND treat this kind of public statement [1:23] that convey a threat of use of force from the Chinese Ambassador? [1:28] Your Honor, consistent with our earlier pronouncements, number one, we refute all allegations made by the Ambassador [1:39] that we are troublemakers and are provoking. [1:43] We reiterate, inuulit namin, Your Honor, ang aming pag-suporta at pag-taguyod sa UNCLOS and the UN Charter. [1:57] However, pangalawa, pinahihwating na po natin ang ating pag-object sa kanyang pananalita [2:08] kasi hindi lang naman isang beses sinabi niyang, you lose. [2:12] Yung pinoportray po ngayon ay yung, we can use force if we want, but we may win easily. [2:21] Meron pong isa na sinabi siya na, okay, you cut military communications, but you lose. [2:32] So, ibig po sabihin, may pagbabantana po doon. [2:38] Dalawang beses po niyang sinabi po yan. [2:42] Ngayon po, ipinatawag na po siya ng DFA, we have to wait, Your Honor, for developments which, of course, [2:54] the President or the DFA will message to the public at an appropriate time. [3:04] Pero maliwanag po ang ating pagtutol, hindi lang dito sa statement niya. [3:10] Kung hindi, the more important thing, yung kanilang false narrative na may nine dash line, [3:17] may meron silang jurisdiction. [3:21] Pangatlo, yung kanila pong latest narrative na ang Batanes ay part ng China. [3:29] Kasi meron na daw silang karapatan na mag-operate sa mga karagatan na nagpapalibot sa Batanes. [3:38] Yan po ay matinding tinututulan at aming pong sinusubukan na i-deter yung ganyang klaseng mga behavior. [3:48] Salamat po. [3:49] Thank you, Secretary. [3:51] Sorry, much has been said over the weekend, and I think this is an opportunity to clarify where we stand. [3:58] And we believe in diplomacy, but we also believe in developing good relations with our neighbors. [4:03] Pero siyempre, dapat may respeto sa isa at isa. [4:06] Medyo hindi na maganda ang kanyang mga aksyon at mga pananalita. [4:14] Ano na, may halong pananakot. [4:19] Very hostile and very undiplomatic. [4:23] And we would like to support our Secretary also, your stand also when you were in Singapore. [4:32] I'd like to commend you for that, for being firm and steadfast in saying that we will protect, and we are just protecting our sovereignty and our territorial integrity. [4:42] So, thank you, Secretary Teodoro, for that. [4:46] Pablo, our center president would like to ask questions already. [4:51] Mr. President, I was watching the hearing. [4:55] I was waiting actually in my room, and I saw Senator Laxon was waiting here way, way advanced than both of us. [5:04] So, I will yield to Senator Laxon who came in first before we both came in. [5:11] Yes, Senator Laxon will now propound his questions and concerns. [5:15] Yes, thank you, Mr. President and Mr. Chairman. [5:18] Yung isang item dito, yung unused appropriations. [5:22] Of course, when we speak of unused appropriations, it is the total of unobligated at saka unreleased. [5:29] For 2024, pag pinagsama yung dalawa, nasa mga 32 billion. [5:39] 32 billion. [5:40] Yeah, billion. [5:41] 32 billion, no? [5:43] 2024. [5:43] Wala na ito kasi is under the continuing appropriations. [5:47] Two years lang eh. [5:48] In 2025, nasa mga 31 billion. [5:52] Again, unobligated and unreleased. [5:56] So, what would account for the, I think, this is huge numbers, 31 billion in unused appropriations for 2025. [6:10] What would account, sir, are the inflationary pressures dun sa mga kinakailangan po natin i-acquire? [6:19] At doon naman po sa limited na capital outlay, dahil po sa costings ng materials, umaakyat po yung halaga. [6:31] Kaya po, kung, pangantlo po, yung pag ginamit yung ibang items po dun sa unobligated, pag inobligate po, tataas pa po yung mica natin sa amount ng modernization. [6:47] So, yung fiscal constraints po, and yung pag-costing po ng mga horizons, gumagapang po yung presyo halos araw-araw. [7:00] So, pag may nakit, unang-una po, baka dun po sa approved bid ceiling kasi, doon po sa mga reglamento natin, hindi na po ayon sa presyo na gusto natin. [7:17] Pangalawa po, yung ating pong patakaran na kailangan po yung platforms are fully weaponized and provided with reserves kasi yung po ang nakikita. [7:34] Actually, very, very conservative yung reserves natin na 30 days na munitions per platform. [7:42] Pero alam po natin na humahaba po yung panahon na kailangan po natin na reserva. [7:47] Yun po ang primary reason po from 2024. [7:52] Because I remember, at the end of 2023 po, dun po masok ang re-horizon 3. [7:58] Kasi nag-revisa po kami ng kinakailangan, kaya nagbago po ito. [8:02] So, the next relevant question would be, how do we resolve this issue? [8:09] Kasi year in, year out, ito lagi yung nagiging problem. [8:13] We're trying to catch up. It seems that we are not catching up. [8:18] Sir, there should really be a determination to have continuous defense spending increases, [8:26] which will impact the total fiscal picture of the government. [8:32] I will give an example, Your Honor. [8:36] Ang Singapore from day one ng panganak niya in 1965 or 66, [8:43] 6% ng GDP at the minimum ang ginagastos po nila. [8:49] Tayo po ay sa core defense spending, wala pa po sa dos. [8:54] Nasasakal na po yung budget natin. [8:56] I think it should be a determination, Your Honor, [9:04] na we raise the amount through financing [9:08] because if we make a determination, [9:11] nagagastusin lang talaga ito on the future generations, [9:15] mabuti pa umpisahan na natin ang tama sa ngayon [9:19] kesa sa pamahal ng pamahal o pasikip ng pasikip ito. [9:23] So, I think it is a macro-economic problem that has to be solved macro-economically. [9:31] Pangalawa naman po, nile-leverage din po natin ang alliances natin [9:37] katulad ng official security assistance ng Japan na 200 million kada taon na US dollars [9:43] at FMF financing sa US at sa iba pa pong partners sa Australia at sa Canada in the future. [9:53] Pero hindi ito substitute ho talaga. [9:57] And I see your point, Your Honor. [9:59] I think it will go beyond my mandate to view a solution to this problem. [10:12] The acquisition, the avenues of getting the funds, [10:18] we can probably remediate, [10:21] but the repayment is the problem which transcends the D&D. [10:27] we are really reflecting the realities of the costs that we need. [10:38] At the end of the day, it's a political decision [10:41] whether you fund this versus something else [10:44] because it's really a zero-sum game. [10:47] There's no denying it. [10:53] That's as best as I can answer our vice chairperson. [10:58] Thank you.