If it quacks like a duck…

No matter how the handlers and hangers-on of the newly crowned World Boxing Council super featherweight champion try to spin it, the fact is that Juan Manuel Marquez has unfinished business, and his name is Manny Pacquiao.

Marquez is now engaged in an elaborate charade aimed at ducking Pacquiao. His defenders cite Manny’s alleged problems with Oscar de la Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions. Ex-Manager Shelley Finkel sarcastically refers to the "great advice" Manny is receiving from his current handlers, and sheds crocodile tears that the Filipino is "out of the loop" at this time.

The fact remains that until Marquez and Pacquiao meet in a match to decide once and for all the issue of who deserves to be champ, Marquez will always be considered an officious caretaker of the WBC belt.

Once again, business reasons are trumping the indubitable interest of the sport. The rankings of boxers are meant to be an important gauge of the ability of a fighter, not the business acumen of his managers.

Handlers of Marquez and the dethroned Marco Antonio Barrera are now salivating over the piles of greenbacks they think they will make in a rematch. If Barrera gets back his title in such a return engagement, a rubber match is all but certain. That means Manny may have to cool his heels indefinitely.

Perhaps the calculation of Marquez’s equally scared advisers is that, in time, Manny will have passed his prime, or will become so enamored of politics and quit boxing altogether, or be defeated by a unknown journeyman and thus be relegated to that long list of wannabes who perennially wait in vain for a championship match.

But until we see Marquez in the ring again with Pacquiao, doubts will continue to hound the new supposed champ. It must stick in his craw that Manny gets the accolades, or is called the best boxer in his class pound for pound.

In short, Marquez can run but he can’t hide forever. He ought to be reminded that, in the cruel world of high-stakes boxing, ducks, no matter how loudly they quack, eventually turn into chickens.

* * *

I got a copy of the Reply of Luis Moratinos Munoz to the complaint of an Ateneo college student against him for sexual harassment. It appears Moratinos, an official of the Delegation of the European Commission in the Philippines, claims diplomatic immunity.

As stated in his Reply filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, Moratinos contends that, as a diplomatic agent, he is "exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of public international law."

His authority is Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, to which the Philippines is a signatory, which says that a "diplomatic agent" shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of a receiving State. This immunity from criminal jurisdiction, Moratinos argues, is absolute. The immunity encompasses civil and administrative liability, although one relevant exception is when the action relates to "any professional or commercial activity" which a respondent exercises outside his official functions.

Since the matter is still before the City Prosecutor, I won’t comment on this legal position. What I can address is the ridiculous situation a complainant faces when a "diplomatic agent" is accused of committing sexual harassment, an act punishable under our criminal laws, not in the performance of his official functions as diplomat but while teaching college students in a reputable university such as the Ateneo de Manila.

The effect of extending diplomatic immunity in this kind of situation is to afford to a sexual predator virtual license to commit punishable criminal acts against our young and impressionable students. To say that the predator could conceivably be subject to civil liability is no answer since the "diplomat" could evade any such action by the simple expedient of leaving the country and seeking undeserved refuge elsewhere.

I am not saying that Moratinos, a Third Secretary and Political Affairs Officer of the EC delegation to the country, is guilty of the charges. But he should meet the issue squarely and not hide behind the skirts of diplomatic immunity. The Reply he filed with the City Prosecutor does not go into the substance of the charges. He simply asked that the charges against him be effectively dismissed. (Technically, he asked that a subpoena issued by the Prosecutor against him be quashed.)

When asked to appear before a Fact Finding Committee set up by the Ateneo, he not only failed to appear, he submitted a letter of resignation. Inexplicably, the committee deemed the case against Mr. Moratinos "resolved." His resignation was evidently accepted and the administrative matter has, for all intents and purposes, been terminated. There is no indication in the record that he has been dismissed for cause, for failure to answer the charges, or for fleeing the administrative jurisdiction of the committee. Although the lack of any factual record was due to Mr. Moratinos’ own refusal to submit an answer, the committee didn’t think he could be presumed guilty.

Mr. Moratinos has already left the country, ostensibly for "training" in Brussels, Belgium. A check today with the office of the EC delegation discloses that he never returned to the country on March 12th, the date we were initially informed he would resume his duties here. I am informed that he has resigned from the EC.

I doubt we will ever see hide or hair of Mr. Moratinos in these parts anytime soon. If he does return, I still hope to see him personally to get his side of the story, not to hear him restate his claim to diplomatic immunity. That, Mr. Moratinos knows very well, is hardly the point.