Filipinos are not being told about the progress of the negotiations ordered by the Supreme Court for an agreement on the custody of Lance Corporal Daniel Smith while the Court of Appeals is reviewinfg the American’s appeal of his 2006 rape conviction by a lower court.
That’s understandable given how diplomatic talks are.
But surely the agreement, if and when it is crafted, should now be “in accord” with the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement unlike the Romulo-Kenney pact which allowed Smith to be spirited out of the Pasay city jail in the dead of the night.
Smith was moved just hours after the Pasay City Regional Trial Court found him guilty of raping Suzette Sombilon Nicolas in Subic.
(Press reports have described Nicolas, a.k.a. ‘Nicole’ as a ‘commercial sex worker’ while Smith was an Okinawa-based Marine from St. Louis and was on liberty in Subic Bay Freeport after participating in the annual Balikatan Exercise when the rape occurred. During his seven-month trial, he claimed the sex was consensual. The three other co-respondents of Smith were acquitted.)
It was recently retired Justice Adolf Azcuna who wrote the 9-4 decision of the full Supreme Court which also upheld the VFA’s constitutionality.
But a telling part of that decision reads: “It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody during the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement to cover detention. And this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the detention shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall be ‘by Philippine authorities.’ Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not “by Philippine authorities. Respondents should therefore comply with the VFA and negotiate with representatives of the United States towards an agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as mandated by Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA.”
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/175888.htm
This is the point now being pressed in the 46-page Motion for Reconsideration filed yesterday before the high court by the lawyer of ‘Nicole’, citizens groups, and former Senate President Jovito Salonga.
Also yester, the Office of the Solititor General filed the government motion seeking clarification of the February 11 9-4 decision that upheld the VFA’s constitutionality but said the Romulo-Kenny arrangment on Smith’s custodoy was a no=no.
The SC justices could very well just deliberate among themselves and resolve the matter with little time lost.
But with the Court of Appeals review still forthcoming along with the Smith custody talks pending, all the parties in interest have little option but to wait.
No one, of course, can deny Filipinos two of the most persuasive tools in a democracy: the freedoms of speech and to peaceably assemble.
Popularity: 1% [?]
the pictures are too big :)
Corrected na po. :)
Triple jeopardy na pards! The VFA has already been “tried” twice and found Constitutional twice. It has been examined twice by 30 judges (15 each time). And found constitutional. But Daniel Smith has only been found guilty by a single solitary judge. 20 more must rule on his case (5 from the CA and 15 from SCORP).
Where really, is your sense of proportion when it comes to fairness and justice. If I hid the details of the case and you didn’t know this was an American on trial or the VFA, you would have no trouble agreeing with me.
The abrogationists can’t really win this one because isn’t it obvious: the Filipino People are overwhelmingly pro-American!
DJB,
So Manong this isn’t about serving the ends of justice but about Filipinos being “overwhelmingly pro-American”?
Then we simnply should have Daniel brought to Plaza ~Miranda with you as his paralegal para naging parang ligal, right?I(Wink, wink)
Well, I’m overwhelmed.:~)
Oh please Ding. spare me the nationalist dramatics. Of course it is about justice. But the title of your post today is “The VFA on Trial”–which is a purely political trial, no? I am merely pointing out to that at least 30 Justices in two separate SCoRP Cases have already ruled against your position, and also that the Jury of 96 million Filipinos has voted against that position too.
At the same time there is 100% unanimity among all Filipinos and Americans, on the need to justly and fairly punish rape. No one is against that. Not even this unjust ogre.
But the RP US political relationship really has very little to do with the rape case. It is necessary for the Left to take advantage of it using all the tricks and psychology of “victimology”, with which so many, even here at FV, appear to be afflicted and infected from Constantinoesque childhoods. Look I sympathize with your frustration, but I submit it is because you have confounded two largely unrelated problems: the alleged criminal behavior of one human being against another human being, and the needs of their two countries for national defense. They are only incidentally related by the fact that Daniel Smith was serving in the US armed forces when his hormones got the better of his brain, allegedly.
Dean,
Your “you have confounded two largely unrelated problems: the alleged criminal behavior of one human being against another human being, and the needs of their two countries for national defense. They are only incidentally related by the fact that Daniel Smith was serving in the US armed forces when his hormones got the better of his brain, allegedly.”
Holds the key to resolving this debate.
Given that Smith’s carnal desires ruled his actions while being in the US military, he should
then have been discharged dishonorably and allowed to stand trial here as an ordinary American citizen.
Why behind the skirt of the VFA?
Does this scenario clarify that my position hinges on basic justice and not “nationalist dramatics” that you disdain and dismiss in so cavalier a manner?
HI DJB and Ding,
I agree with DJB entirely. There is NO correlation between this rape case and the VFA. It is the height of nationalist dramatics or theatrics to hammer this issue, out, as again.
That’s what I meant by my earlier entry here which talked about intellectual philistinism. We are so taken by this issue that we forget when to stop talking about it.
We can stop tsalking about thius easy.
Let’s have SCORP decide pronto. Kakainipo ah.
As I ;posited earlier in a previous thread. If Smith wasc responsible only for his proclivities, his carnal perversion, why is he allowed to hide nehnd the VFA skirt????
THE us MILITARY SHOULD NOT HAVE “REQUESTED” SND INVOKED THE VFA’S IMMUNITY PROVISO THEN.
If that happened, Smith would have been tried and convicted at a civilisan American in the Philippibes and still would han been death ewith fairly right?
DJB himself has said that in his own opinion Smith is guilty of the crime of rape.
Why go around in circles?
well, being guilty of rape is different from being adjudged as poster boy of VFA.
DJB is right—there is no correlation between Smith rape case and the VFA. Kung hindi sundalo si Smith, would we even bother to write about him? definitely, not.
and bakit natin pangungunahan ang SCORP? And why decide pronto? Let them have the luxury of time.
Besides, we are so concerned with Smith, we are not concerned about putting in jail the likes of Joc-Joc, Boy Sese and even the First Gentleman? Atat na atat tayong ikulong si Puti, pero sina baboy in barong, hindi? Dahil ba gusto nating ipatikim sa mga hayok ng munti ang fresh foreign meat na si Smith?
but, come to think of it…
tingin ko the reason why we want Smith jailed asap in Munti…walang ebola virus ang mama. samantalang sina FG, being local baboys, meron. hehehe!
Rape can be done to a prostitute. We are still
living in a colonized mentality.