Consumers Domain
Abort VFA
"It's an utterly shameless act of collaboration of the Arroyo regime and the U.S. government."
--Task Force Subic Rape (TFSR) on the stealthy transfer of custody of Daniel Smith from the Makati City Jail to the U.S. Embassy.
The crafting of the Visiting Forces Agreement or the VFA was opposed for being an agreement that is seen to pursue the dark "legacy"of the US military bases. Working around the ban on foreign military bases in the country, the VFA is another unbalanced agreement that showcases our government's subservience to the US.
Contrary to the government's earlier pronouncements, the subic rape incident and how the Philippine government (mis)handled the case unmasked the lopsidedness of VFA.
This column would like to yield this space to another relevant statement. Below is joint statement of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and the Jose W. Diokno Foundation, Inc. on the issue.
* * * * *
Joint Statement of FLAG and Jose W. Diokno Foundation, Inc.
Daniel Smith was tried and convicted by a Philippine court for raping a Filipina in Philippine territory. He actively participated in the trial, and has even appealed his conviction. Like any other convict, Daniel Smith should have been transferred to a Philippine prison. Instead, he was surreptitiously transferred to the U.S. embassy.
There will be more Daniel Smiths for as long as the Visiting Forces Agreement remains in force. To us, the real issue here is not the proper interpretation of the VFA but the validity and wisdom of the VFA itself. The case of Daniel Smith shows us exactly why the VFA should be terminated immediately.
The VFA is not a treaty.
No less than Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno of the Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion in Bayan v. Executive Secretary (G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 & 138698, 10 October 2000), has said so:
"In conclusion,...I respectfully submit that the Court will be standing on unstable ground if it places a sole executive agreement like the VFA on the same constitutional plateau as a treaty. Questions remain and debate continues on the constitutional basis as well as the legal effects of sole executive agreements under U.S. law. Xxx
With the cloud of uncertainty still hanging on the exact legal force of sole executive agreements under the U.S. constitutional law, this Court must strike a blow for the sovereignty of our country by drawing a bright line between the dignity and status of a treaty in contrast with a sole executive agreement. However we may wish it, the VFA, as a sole executive agreement, cannot climb to the same lofty height that the dignity of a treaty can reach. Consequently, it falls short of the requirement set by Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution that the agreement allowing the presence of foreign military troops on Philippine soil must be "recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state."
I vote to grant the petitions." (Dissenting opinion, pp. 30-31)
The VFA is unconstitutional.
The Constitution mandates that only a treaty can allow the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines, and that the treaty should also be "recognized as a treaty by the other contracting party" (Sec. 25, Art. XVIII). This provision was included in the 1987 Constitution to prevent the same kind of disparity that existed when the 1947 Military Bases Agreement was still in effect.
"MR. OPLE. xxx...xxx [W]e have acknowledged starting at the committee level that the bases agreement was ratified by our Senate; it is a treaty under Philippine law. But as far as the Americans are concerned, the Senate never took cognizance of this, and therefore, it is an executive agreement. That creates a wholly unacceptable asymmetry between the two countries. Therefore, in my opinion, the right step to take...is that we must begin with a clean slate; we should not be burdened with the flaws of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement.
FR. BERNAS. When I say that the other contracting state must recognize it as a treaty, by that I mean it must perform all the acts required for the agreement to reach the status of a treaty under their jurisdiction." (1986 Constitutional Deliberations Record, pp. 780-783)
The VFA is one-sided.
Daniel Smith was found guilty by a Philippine court of raping a Filipina on Philippine soil. He was duly charged, arraigned, tried and convicted, and has now appealed his conviction. Like anyone else convicted of raping a Filipina in Philippine territory, Daniel Smith should have been transferred to a Philippine prison. Instead, he is in the custody of the United States, in the U.S. Embassy, on U.S. territory.
Would a Filipino soldier convicted for the same offense in the United States be given the same treatment?
Terminate the VFA now.
* * * * *
In a previous article, this column wrote about the deplorable actuations of (In)justice Sec. Raul that also dwelt on the Philippine government's (mis)handling of the Subic rape case. I would like to acknowledge an interesting comment from one of this column's readers. Sent through text, below is the comment coming from cell number XXXX-901-8505.
"Good pm! Congrats on ur article about Justice Sec. Gonzales. No wonder that despite the Supreme Court's adverse ruling, GEGATO-ABECIA FUNERAL HOMES, INC. still operates. The owner is his nephew. -- ALTA TIERRA QUINTIN SALAS residents. P.S. Where is JUSTICE? Where is the RULE OF LAW."
(Send your comments and reactions to: for text messages to 0919-348-6337; for e-mails to ianseruelo@yahoo.com; and for blogs to http://consumersdomain.blogspot.com.)