Let it not be said that we at Filipino Voices did not understand the VFA controversy long before the compleat explanation of it had become common knowledge even in the Main Stream Media and the rest of the Blogosphere. Let it be on the record herewith, that we at Filipino Voices understood the answer given by SCoRP to the central question of whether or not the very presence of US troops in the Philippines, such as the accused Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, is allowed under the 1987 Constitution, and by WHICH treaty that came to pass:
Nicolas v. Romulo (SCoRP GR No. 175888 Feb. 2009) “The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of the fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence “allowed under” the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself has been ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the US Senate, there is no violation of the Constitutional provision resulting from such presence.”
1987 Constitution Art. XVIII Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
In simple English, the VFA abrogationists are barking up the WRONG treaty. It is the fully and mutually ratified 1952 MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY that allows the presence of US troops in such things as Balikatan. The Visiting Forces Agreement is an agreement, as the name implies, on the manner and method of implementing the MDT to satisfy the need of our two countries for mutual defense in the year 2009. Abrogate that!
Here is what we told Kiko down at the ranch.
And today, founding father Joaquin Bernas, S.J. gingerly ignores the elephant in the room I have just described, but does a masterful job at demolishing the new arguments based on the “supervening event theory” of Justice Carpio’s dissenting opinion. Read The Problem About Corporal Smith.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Manong Dean,
Methinks the element is (and do please correct any misimpression this poor non-lawyer has) GIVEN THE WIDE UNIVERSE THAT SEPARATES THE TWO COUNTRIES’ JUDICIAL SYSTEMS, the ‘alleged’ rapist certainly is ‘entitled’ to enjoy super great protection.
Notice how at two reinforcing layers, State, and Federal, Filipino servicemen won’t just ‘get away with murder’ in a manner of speaking. :)
Don’t get me wrong, I am not under any illusion that David will slay Goliath in these modern neo-colonial times
Ano tayo, sinuswerte???
Further,
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/former-cj-panganiban-junk-vfa-jail-daniel-smith/
I say again, will it really hurt if the SCORP calls new oral arguments to lay to rest the confusion wrought by the valedictory ponente of Justice Adolf Azcuna.
BTW, is the Pope nfallible? :)
VFA2 is an interesting read, siya nga pala. :)
The 2 VFA are splenlidly duplicitous. :)
BTW, Quite a sexy post pic you have there :)
Two VFAs I meant/ Typo error sorry.
If after the SCORP finds it in its conscience to hold open arguments on the VFA brouhaha and the VFAs are upheld, we will all bow, including those in the ‘ly6nch mob’.
Then let the CA resolve Smiths RTC conviction.
If acquitted, oh well…
If convicted but pardoned, oh well… yet again :)
“If convicted but pardoned, oh well…yet again”
Don’t feel so bad about it. This is pretty much standard behavior. Governments always try to do what they can to spring their people in trouble in foreign legal jurisdictions. The Philippines does it all the time.
Mikli lang naman ang case-zablocki act, let me post it here:
Like you and Ding, I am no lawyer.
That is why I have a codigo above.
The act above mostly states the role of the secretary of state in transmitting to congress the text of international agreements.
all it says is first the sec of state as the alter ego of the potus decides if it an agreement is an agreement then transmit to congress
Now that medellin case,
In the end The medelllin punk got executed,despite the diplomatic protests of the mexican government.
In that case the state of texas stood its ground despite the Potus’ request for delay of execution.
=====
I just don’t get what you said that the CaseZabloski-Act did not render unconstitional several treaties, then you ask why would Medellin render the VFA unconstitutional.
One is a procedure or SOP of the state department(case), the other is a court decision(medellin).
Oh here’s something Justice Bernas himself reveals:
“I too agreed that we would have to accept the word of the US about what for them is a treaty. Since the US then accepted it as a treaty, that satisfied our constitutional requirement”.
Taking Uncle Sam’s word…hmmm… just like when they let the Japanesev take us. Three years in hell we had to endure. As psart of the Greater East Asia C-Prosperity Sphere. Oh well….. :)
Ding,
Put the shoe on the other foot. How would we feel if they told US how to recognize treaties, or told us that we had to recognize treaties in the exactly the same way they recognize treaties? And that every time they decide to do it differently that that automatically abrogates our treaties. Malabo yata, pards.
Manong Dean,
I am a size 7, Double-E, and would probably have to scrounge arounbd those outlet shops in New Jersey to find the right fit, given that Americans, and perhasps Americans-by-naturalization have bigger, less calloused feet.
But Filipinos have long suffered from a more insidious kind of callous-ness with a healthy dose of duplicity thrown in.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a lot of Nar=tural-born American friends of long standing and they similarly detest their government’s neocolonis policies.
I am appreciative of American help and believe that the proversial deep reservoir of good will between the two ”unequal’ allies remain nearly bottomless.
However, I have only one passport and one country I call my Motherland.
And I will never brook patent injustice and rank derogation of Philippine sovereignty when I see it.
Not too long ago that blasted MoA-AD, where the US
Institute for Peace (USIP)embedded that First Nation theory (perfected when the superior whites were pacifying the Wild Wild West) tried to engineer the Republic’s dismemberment.
Then and now, I will keep on hammering on my keys to help Filipinos see the travesty being rammed down our collective throats.
Ding,
I must admit I do not “feel” like an American nationalist, nor do I “feel” like a Filipino nationalist. It’s just like while my father is Ilocano and my mother Tagalog, yet I “feel” like a Filipino first before I even think of myself as either Tagalog or Ilocano. Likewise as an American, I studied on both coasts, yet I am not aware of any other emotion than that I am a Human Being with these labels attached to my person because of the pure accidents of my history.
Yes I admit it: I am not a Tribalist or a Nationalist any more even if I am thoroughly familiar with both emotions.
Ding,
The US Army has a pretty good Marching Band. Years ago I heard there was talk of trying to bring them over here to mix it up with the talented Filipino musicians in the Armed Forces. For a little camaraderie and such.
Suppose such a plan became real. These are obvious “foreign troops” and would be covered by the provision we have been arguing about.
Is it your contention that to bring these guys over, if there were no VFA to begin with, that the RP and the US would have to sign a treaty to be ratified by both Senates?
Manong,
As the duplicitous VFAs now stand,not. But if our two countries are GENUINELY EQUAL, can we not revisit even the MDT? Too much to ask our American comrades-in-arms? Pray tell, Kuya.
Ding,
The Philippines is a sovereign country. It can revisit and abrogate any treaty it wants to. There is usually a one year waiting period after serving notice. American comrades cannot stop the Philippines from doing so. We do not need their mutual agreement to abrogate.
I am not sure what you are asking, actually. But I must ask you to elucidate further what exactly you mean by two countries being genuinely equal??
It is like the Treaty between the Native
American Indians and the White people settlers
in the good old America. It had no teeth, and
the White people settlers always broke it, at
the expense of the Native American Indians. It
was never honored and respected. Instead, it was
used to exploit the native American Indians.
Until all their lands were taken; themselves
displaced and taken to live in reservarions.
History repeats itself…in the Philippines.
Manong,
“I must ask you to elucidate further what exactly you mean by two countries being genuinely equal??”
We are risking beating a dead horse here. History is replete with proof of how ‘equal’ we have been and L’Affaire Nicole-Smith is only the latest.
If you care to, see how a mere ambassador tells the Senators of the ream to back off:
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/amb-hristie-kenney-tells-rp-senators-back-off-the-vfa/
Nga pala, di ba nagkalinawan na tayo rine?:
http://filipinovoices.com/a-former-chief-justice-weighs-in-on-vfa-brouhaha/comment-page-1#comment-35505
One is a Beggar for finacial aids. The other is
the Donor of multi-million dollars financial aids.
How can the two be equal?
A Beggar and a Donor…
Two are equals ?
Mang Kulas,
“All men are created equal” — this we hold to be self-evident.
Yet when they are born, some are shorter, poorer, dumber, less talented, less good looking, slower, than others. In society, the rich are getting richer; some have big beautiful houses, while most live in hovels; some wear clothes full of holes while others strut in Gucci and Nokia.
Equality is not self-evident, even at the point of birth, it seems.
Is it some kind of mystery then what we mean by EQUALITY in a Democracy. And what could it mean when it comes to nations?