1.

Is it not that the application of the GMA is within the powers of the US
congress?

In order to authorize a valid Humanitarian Financial Intervention, the

US senate must ground its intervention in one of four distinct international
legal regimes: collective –security agreements, law of countermeasures, law
of armed conflict, and enforcement of judicial decisions. None of which
justifies the infringement of the US by invoking the Global Magnitsky Act
on the imprisonment of Sen De Lima.

2. Are you saying that the charges against De Lima and Maria Ressa are
not political persecution?

Your honors, De Lima is charged with conspiracy to trade illegal

drugs as a means to fund her Senatorial bid in 2016. Ressa is charged with
tax evasion, violation of securities laws and cyber libel. They are prosecuted
within the confines of Philippine laws by an independent judiciary. They are
not persecuted.

3. Is it not the obligation of the US to promote Human Rights by invoking

GMA?

Yes your honors, however bias still exist in the application of the
GMA. Take for example the case of Kashogggi in which President Trump
refuses to sign the law banning Saudi Officers. The passage of the recent De
Lima Legislation clearly shows that the US still considers us as a banana
republic subject to their whims and caprices.

4. Wouldn’t it be easier if Philippines would simply grant the request of

the US?

It would send a wrong message to the international community and

President Duterte is not tolerant of threats to our country’s sovereignty.
However, retaliation is also not the right solution. International protest is the
best way to go. If the situation escalates, we will lose and we will lose
comprehensively. We can now say goodbye to $225M in annual aid from
US. The tourism industry can say goodbye to about 15% of its international
arrival and 20% of its revenue. We can also be subject to punitive tarrifs
since US is our second biggest trading partner.

5. Will the international protest work?

We can only assume your honors. But with how the things are
running, the Magnistky Law can only be viewed as a threat to our
sovereignty since the credible information that the law requires is not yet
forth coming. They cannot impose the ban to specific persons hastily. Thus,
amicable settlement is still on the table.