Wikipedia explains the label persona non grata, or PNG, this way:
"Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Article 9, a receiving State may "at any time and without having to explain its decision" declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving State "may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission."
Dictionary.com defines it as:
"(1.) a person who is not welcome... (2.) a diplomatic representative unacceptable to an accrediting government."
The intention to have the priest thrown out of the town is evident, and given the nature of such label when applied in diplomacy, the move of the local officials is, it seems at first, going in the right direction. When loosely applied, calling somebody a PNG is devoid of legal or diplomatic implications. Declaring somebody PNG through a resolution passed by a local government legislative body, I think, has violated a convention on the use of the label in formal diplomacy.
From what I know, the separation of the church and the state is constitutionally mandated in this country. And in the arena of diplomacy, a government like ours must regard the church as another state, that is, represented by the Vatican. Let us be reminded that the business of diplomacy is something not devolved to the local governments. It remains the domain of the foreign affairs department.
As such, the move to declare a priest a PNG by virtue of a Sangguniang Bayan (town legislative body) resolution elevates the use of the label in the language of foreign diplomacy. And there is nowhere in the local government code of the Philippines that a Sangguniang Bayan has been clothed with powers to act on diplomatic matters. Addressing such a resolution directly to the Bishop is an act exhibiting ignorance to established protocols attached to the use of such diplomatic label.
The tone of the resolution should be asking the foreign affairs department to declare the priest a PNG. They are the agency given the power to apply such label to whom it is due when diplomacy is involved. The resolution should have been addressed to the foreign affairs department if the motive is to get official action from the Church.
Beyond protocols, I became interested in the motivation behind the passage of a local government resolution using such diplomatic label to a priest. My research found out that the beginning of all these was when the priest advocated a position contrary to the position of the mayor on the issue of whether to allow a mining company operate in their town or not. Later, a frustrated assassination attempt on the mayor and his brother by unidentified men took place. The incident became a convenient excuse for the mayor to have heavily armed bodyguards roaming in town, with or without him around. In response, the priest made public his second criticism. And so a word war went on, and that PNG resolution came out.
Back to the language of diplomacy, we can't find anything that makes the priest unwelcome to the general public in this town governed by the mayor. He only said critical things against the mayor's actions and decisions, and nothing against the whole town that should regard him unwelcome. The local official's premise who made the resolution is - the priest started undue division in the community, causing the rise of conflict and disorder. I don't think so. The priest just delivered his duty to uphold peace and respect for human life, his call to abhor weapons that kill.
What really caused the conflict is the entry of foreign mining interest in the town, the use of money and buying of favors among villagers who eventually supported the entry of the mining company.
The PNG label is misplaced. It must be directed to a British mining company and those who allowed themselves used in exchange of money and favors must be included, too! In this case, the label PNG needs to take its plural form: personae non gratae.
