Smith Custody Case Show ‘Vestiges of Past Lopsided Relations’ with US

Published on March 7, 2009

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, author of a Senate resolution calling for the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), Evalyn Ursua, lawyer of Subic rape victim “Nicole”; Pacifico Agabin, dean of the Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law; Renato Reyes, Jr., Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan or New Patriotic Alliance) secretary-general; and Neri Javier Colmenares, secretary-general of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) expressed a common view, in a forum March 3 at the UP College of Law, that the battle for custody of convicted rapist Lance Corporal Daniel Smith show “vestiges of past lopsided relations” between the US and the Philippines and that US jurisprudence in the Medellin v. Texas case could work in his favor. They are therefore one in saying that the VFA should be abrogated and that the battle for Smith’s custody is primarily a political battle.

BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat

A senator has described the issue on the custody of convicted rapist L/Cpl. Daniel Smith of the US Marines as reflecting “vestiges of the Philippines’ past lopsided relations with the US.”

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, author of a Senate resolution calling for the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), expressed this view in a forum on the said accord last week at the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, where he spoke with Evalyn Ursua, lawyer of Subic rape victim “Nicole”; Pacifico Agabin, dean of the Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law; Renato Reyes, Jr., Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan or New Patriotic Alliance) secretary-general; and Neri Javier Colmenares, secretary-general of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL).

“Sovereignty is the very basic issue here,” Pangilinan said.

The Makati City Regional Trial Court, in early December 2006, convicted Smith – a participant in the Balikatan military exercises – of raping “Nicole” in Subic, Zambales and ordered his confinement at the Makati City Jail pending his imprisonment at the National Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City. However, on Dec. 29, 2006, he was transferred to the US Embassy in Manila under an agreement between Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenney, or what is now known as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement.

Smith’s confinement at the US Embassy and the constitutionality of the VFA were subsequently challenged at the Philippine Supreme Court.

On Feb. 11, the Philippine Supreme Court with a vote of 9-4 upheld the constitutionality of the VFA and ruled that the Romulo-Kenney Agreement is not in accordance with the VFA.

The High Court instructed the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to begin negotiations with the US Embassy on the issue of Smith’s custody.

The justices who voted against Smith’s detention at the US Embassy while at the same time affirming the VFA as constitutional were Associate Justices Adolfo Azcuna, Leonardo Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Renato Corona, Dante Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, and Arturo Brion.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio filed dissenting opinions declaring the VFA as unconstitutional. They were joined by Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez and Conchita Carpio-Morales.

Pages: 1 2 3