Author: user user

For now, the Senate has decided to exclude incumbent senators who are detained, in hiding, or medically incapacitated from the voting process. As a result, these senators are not counted in determining what constitutes two-thirds of all members of the Senate. Even before and immediately after the resolution, some legal pundits transformed themselves into constitutionalists.

Legal discussion is healthy, but lawyers should distinguish analysis from advocacy. Some have been quick to declare that the conviction of Vice President Sara Duterte is practically secured because the number of votes supposedly needed has been reduced. Others have been quicker to say that the votes have already been predetermined along political lines. But one thing remains beyond debate: the Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.

Armed with this constitutional authority, the Senate may resolve procedural matters as part of its impeachment function. It may make its own rules. But that authority does not give it license to interpret the Constitution with reckless abandon. This is why the impeachment court resorted to amicus curiae, or friends of the court who offered different interpretations, although some appeared more persuasive than others. Except for Justice Adolfo Azcuna, these former Supreme Court Justices opined that ‘all members of the Senate’ refers only to those who can actually participate in the impeachment trial. They applied the spirit and purpose of the provision rather than relying solely on the literal meaning of ‘all members.’ I can only anticipate that the sitting Supreme Court justices may themselves have differing opinions as well.

For every law that is written, there is an intent that serves as its backbone. Words tell us the what; intent tells us the why. Words may appear to mean one thing, yet the purpose behind them may not always be completely captured by their literal language. And that is where division and confusion begin.

The same thing has happened with a simple Gospel message which has been interpreted in different parts of the world by different ‘experts.’ There is only one Gospel message but it has been explained, qualified, expanded, and sometimes distorted through the centuries. Three fundamental words: died, buried, resurrected. And why did He do it? The Bible provides the answer: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ (John 3:16) The reason for saving sinners is love. Yet some have overlooked that reason and have required additional conditions before salvation can be accepted. The apostle Paul himself encountered such distortion: ‘I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-which is really no gospel at all.’ (Galatians 1:6-7) Whether in the laws of man or the law of God, the distortion of words can arise from convenience, self-interest, or a desire to achieve a predetermined result.

Whether the framers of the Constitution intended ‘all members’ to mean every incumbent senator regardless, remains for the Supreme Court to determine. Likewise, whether salvation is a gift of grace or something that must be earned continues to be debated in some religious circles. We should not lose sight of the underlying reason behind each law.

The constitutional provisions on the accountability of public officers were written to provide a mechanism for addressing serious violations of public trust. Impeachment is both legal and political in character, but its constitutional purpose is straightforward: public officials who breach the public trust may be subjected to a process for their removal. The Gospel speaks of something far greater. It speaks of salvation. The Christian message is that God is both just and merciful. Sin carries the penalty of death, yet God, because of His love, provided salvation through Jesus Christ. Salvation is not a reward earned through prayers, alms, good deeds, or religious performance. It is a gift received through faith. The Gospel is not complicated: Christ died. He was buried. He was resurrected. Those who believe are called not merely to recite those words but to live them and allow that belief to manifest itself in their words and actions.

People may attempt to control outcomes by interpreting words according to their interests. Lawyers may argue over what ‘all members of the Senate’ truly means. Religious people may add requirements to a Gospel that was meant to proclaim grace. But words should not become servants of our desired conclusions. We may choose what words to believe. And when we do, we act on such belief. The Constitution must be interpreted according to its text and ultimate purpose of justice. The Gospel must be understood according to its message of grace and love. The real question is what happens to those who presume that sovereignty and destiny are theirs to control.

Siegfred has a diversified set of education and experiences which has made him a game changer and a servant leader in organizations. His professional degrees came from the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York, Ateneo Law School, and University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. His corporate experiences include stints as general counsel for the country’s flag carrier, a food exporter with manufacturing plants in Davao and in Laguna, and a sports distributor company. Siegfred is a former soldier and a lawyer by profession, a teacher and inspirational speaker by passion, and a book author and a writer with a mission.

When Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz at the start of the war, choking off sea passage for some 15 million barrels of oil a day, many feared that prices would skyrocket, cratering the world economy.

Instead, nearly seven months on, oil is expensive but not exorbitant, and analysts say there’s enough oil available to meet current global needs, even as the higher prices cause political problems for U.S. President Donald Trump and others.

That’s because Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers quickly found alternative routes and reached for unused pipeline capacity. When Iran and its militant allies targeted those, the oil exporters and the US military found still other ways-workarounds for the workarounds-in an often clandestine game of whack-a-mole.

With oil now at around $100 a barrel- higher than before the war but not as bad as feared-Iran has diminished leverage, while a US naval blockade and tightened sanctions smother its own economy.

But the workarounds are expensive and may not be sustainable. The drawing down of existing commercial oil stocks-especially by China-has also helped keep prices in check, but cannot continue indefinitely. And Iran could yet gain an edge with continued attacks on key oil facilities.

Pipeline backups were ready

Iran began attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz in response to the U.S.-Israeli bombardment that started the war. In response, the Saudis turned to their East-West pipeline that carries oil to their Red Sea port of Yanbu.

From there, tankers headed out through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait toward Asia. Likewise, the United Arab Emirates used its pipeline cutting across neighboring Oman to Fujairah-a route that skirts the strait.

Both pipelines had spare capacity, and the UAE’s state oil company ADNOC and Saudi Aramco used it to keep exports from collapsing completely during the first weeks of the war.

Meanwhile, some oil leaked out of the Strait of Hormuz. In May, ship operators willing to risk Iranian attack started taking advantage of a US-supervised route near Oman, defying Iran’s demands to use its own vetted route. They shuttled back and forth at night with location systems and mobile phones turned off, and offloaded to tankers waiting outside the strait. Flows from Kuwait, Iraq, and the UAE started to rise again.

But Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen disrupted the Yanbu workaround in July by declaring a blockade of Saudi oil shipments, threatening the Bab el-Mandeb-a repeat of the Hormuz disruption.

In response, the Saudis redirected Asia shipments northwest to the Mediterranean, either through the Suez Canal or-for tankers too big to use it-a pipeline across Egypt to another tanker. The oil then made a huge detour as it was shipped around Africa and back to Asia.

Then the East-West pipeline was attacked earlier this month and forced to shut down, potentially for weeks.

The Saudis shift to the US-protected dark shuttle through Hormuz

With oil loading halted at Yanbu from Sept. 11, the Saudis shifted again, joining other Gulf producers sending oil through the US-guided corridor in the Strait of Hormuz. On Monday, six supertankers loaded 12 million barrels at Saudi terminals on the Persian Gulf, according to shipping data company Kpler.

US officials have touted the role of the southern corridor in keeping energy flowing while their blockade increases pressure on Iran. Adm. Brad Cooper, head of US Central Command, said in a video on social media Saturday that US forces had assisted 2,000 commercial ship transits and the transport of more than 1 billion barrels of oil from Gulf partner nations over ‘the past couple of months.’

Analysts estimate some 6 million barrels of oil per day or more have been passing through the Strait of Hormuz on the dark shuttle route on average-some 40% or more of prewar flows.

The workarounds keep the economy supplied, for now

Rahul Choudhary, vice president of upstream research at energy data firm Rystad Energy, did the math as follows: With 6 million or 7 million barrels per day now flowing through the southern route, plus 2 million barrels through the pipeline to Fujairah, fully 8 million or so of the blocked 15 million barrels per day from before the war have been restored.

That still leaves roughly 7 million barrels per day missing from prewar flows.

But wait: About 3.5 million barrels per day are being drawn down from the globe’s abundant oil inventories. Meanwhile, demand has fallen by perhaps another 5 million barrels per day, due to the higher price and sluggish economic growth in key markets. Add in 500,000 to 700,000 barrels per day from other suppliers such as the US, and that pretty much evens out the global oil market.

‘Our take is that the market is very tightly balanced,’ Choudhary said. ‘That is why you are not seeing exceptionally high prices for crude; they are still in the $100 range, and they have not touched $140-$150 per barrel – which could have been the case if there was a deficit of 5-6 million barrels.’

In fact, Rystad foresees oil at $85-$90 per barrel in the last three months of the year, and falling to $80-$82 next year if Hormuz is reopened.

But the workarounds are costly-and not a permanent fix

The workarounds are time-consuming and expensive.

Sending oil to Asia through the Suez Canal instead of the Red Sea can add as much as a month to the voyage. Meanwhile, the Hormuz shuttle trade involves expensive tankers waiting at least a day and a half in the Gulf of Oman for the ship-to-ship transfer.

The demand for supertankers has sent charter rates-normally $30,000 to $50,000 per day-through the roof. Spot charter rates for Hormuz transits reached $1 million per day on Sept. 11, according to maritime data company Windward, equivalent to roughly $26 per barrel. That means shipping is a quarter of the cost, instead of the usual 1% to 3%.

And markets are braced for further disruption. The attack on the East-West pipeline has shown pipelines can be vulnerable. Iran could try to disrupt the U.S. route through the Strait of Hormuz or target areas near the Omani coast where the ship-to-ship transfers are taking place.

If that happens, the workaround would be to do the transfers farther away-taking more time and running up even bigger bills.