Senate caucus, EDCA, legal issues (“Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement”)
Re a “contract-review” of the EDCA, or a line-by-line legal, textual review, may I upload that in the blog a few minutes before the oral arguments in the SC, if any; or after all the pleadings have been filed and the case submitted for resolution.
A contract-review sets forth legal entanglements, line-by-line, provides options, etc.– all the parties are actually benefitted by the information.
Let me just do that later, it will benefit both parties, pwomisse.
I’ll just confine myself to “live legal tweets” on the EDCA. Well, it is more than live, it is anticipatory, the Senate caucus is not yet happening (or is it):
News peg: From Grace Poe, interview: “ ‘My question is: Let’s say there’s an invasion, we are attacked, how fast will the Americans come to our assistance? Will they still go through a UN (United Nations) resolution?” she (the senator) said on Nimfa Ravelo’s program on dzBB.’ “
Legal tweet: Ito po ang MDT: Article 5, MDT: “(A)n armed attack on either of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.”
Ang pinuproblema po ay iyong mga disputed territories – hindi po iyon saklaw ng MDT.
Ok. That’s all. Don’t want to do free staff work.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.