WHAT are we to do if the synchronicity of events turns into a wider conflict and the threat of war engulfs our shores? One option is neutrality. It was an option which a delegate in the ill-fated Constitutional Convention of 1971 tried to present to our people. Delegate Tomas C. Benitez introduced Resolution 268 entitled “A Resolution to Include in the Declaration of Principles a Provision on the Perpetual Neutralization of the Philippines.” In his resolution, Benitez wanted to include the following provision to the Declaration of Principles in the new Constitution that was being crafted at the time by 320 delegates. The proposed declaration read:

“The Filipino people solemnly declare their free, firm and final will to be at peace with all nations and to wage with none save in legitimate defense of the state to this end seek and maintain a status of perpetual neutralization in cooperation with friendly nations.”

The resolution also cited Section 11 of the Philippine Independence Act which pertains to a request by the United States Congress to the President of the United States for the latter to enter into negotiations with foreign powers to conclude a treaty to guarantee the perpetual neutrality of the Philippines.

What is neutrality? It is the status of a State that voluntarily abstains from participating in a war between and among other States. What is neutralization? This refers to the guarantee made by States signatories to a convention or treaty that they shall not take up arms against the neutralized State. An example of a neutralized State is Switzerland which, by declaration signed in Vienna on March 20, 1815, was neutralized by Austria, France and Russia — the major European powers at the time.

Although it would now be impossible for the Philippines to ask other nations to guarantee its neutrality, it may declare neutrality and adopt measures to guarantee that combatants will respect its self-proclaimed neutrality. As a self-proclaimed neutral power, the Philippines will be obliged to follow the rules of neutrality.

According to the law of armed conflict, neutral nations have the right of inviolability. However, they must observe the duty of abstention and impartiality. Acts of hostility are prohibited in a neutral territory. The prohibition to engage in hostile acts against a belligerent applies not only to neutral land territory, but also to neutral waters and airspace. Belligerents are forbidden to move personnel and war materiél across neutral territory. Belligerent troops who enter neutral territory must be disarmed and interned until the end of the war. A neutral State may allow passage of the sick and wounded across its territory, provided that the vehicles transporting them do not carry weapons of war or combatants still capable of engaging in the conflict. If a prisoner of war (POW) escapes to neutral territory, then the neutral State may cause his repatriation, or leave the escaped POW in peace. The escaped POW, however, must not be allowed to commit acts hostile to the interest of a belligerent while staying in the territory of the neutral State.

Under international law, hostile acts in neutral waters, airspace and land are prohibited. The neutral State shall close its ports and roadsteads to belligerents. A roadstead is an anchorage for ships usually less sheltered than a harbor. Neutral nations have the correlative duty to prevent use of their airspace by belligerent aircraft. A neutral State, therefore, has the obligation of preventing its territory from being a sanctuary of a belligerent force. If a neutral State cannot comply with these conditions, then the aggrieved belligerent may undertake enforcement measures to protect its interest in the conflict. That was the reason given by the United States in 1969, when it bombed Cambodia for allegedly allowing North Vietnam to move troops and supplies within its territory.

Neutral nations may engage in commerce with belligerent States but cannot supply war armaments and materiél to a belligerent without violating its duty to be impartial. Thus, a neutral nation may lose its status of neutrality in the event it supplies armaments to a belligerent State. In such cases, the opposing belligerent may stop the flow of armaments through violent means.

Belligerent troops who enter neutral territory shall be asked to leave. A neutral State may militarily engage a belligerent who enters its territory. Should a neutral power resist violations of its neutrality by force, that will not be considered a hostile act, according to the standards set forth by international law.

In a conflict involving superpowers, neutrality may be the best option for the Philippines. Due to its highly strategic location, our country has unfortunately become the battlefield of empires and world powers at war with each other.

As for Delegate Benitez’s Resolution 268? Nothing became of it. It was sidelined by Proclamation 1081 and the subsequent imposition of martial law.